Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Jobs, Dell share stage, blast teacher unions
macnn.com — Last week it was the music labels, this week it was teacher unions. Apple cofounder and CEO Steve Jobs on Friday spared no words in criticizing the state of public schools and the teacher unions, saying that schools were never likely to improve until principals could fire bad teachers. The Associated Press notes that Jobs shared the stage with riv
trendy- 1620 diggs
- digg it
- HalBSure, on 10/12/2007, -14/+81Steve's on a roll.
- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22 Direct link to article:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/16717129.htm - DocWhoWho, on 10/12/2007, -99/+10Steves on a maniac roll and clueless.
You ***** will continue to suck his dick though, cause, well, you are not very bright. - zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -94/+38Steve's out of touch, and has spent far too long being fabulously wealthy.
Teacher's unions have their downsides, sure. But you try working for 33,000 per year, having to spend a full third of your AFTER TAX (also a third) salary on teaching supplies---for which you never get reimbursed (because no matter how many popular bills the government passes, not one of them ever gives schools more money), and living on the other 2/3rds. Teachers are woefully underpaid, and its the unions that keep them from starving completely.
Sure, they could go and do something else that pays more, I know the argument. But then who would teach? - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14FTA
"Jobs compared schools to businesses with principals serving as CEOs.
"What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he asked to loud applause during an education reform conference.
"Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, 'I can't win.'"
"Dell responded that unions were created because "the employer was treating his employees unfairly and that was not good.
"So now you have these enterprises where they take good care of their people. The employees won, they do really well and succeed."
...good cop.. bad cop..??? - gstringjihad, on 10/12/2007, -13/+69@zttrx
so principals shouldn't be able to fire teachers because teachers don't get paid enough? what? - WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5Steve's Army, bare your arms for the fight against teacher's unions; you know you have/want to once Stevie has "denounced" them.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -11/+124All this talk about unions, bad teachers, bad administrators. Yet no talk about bad parenting?
Take a child with great parents and send him to the most worthless public schools in America, they'll do what it takes to get the kid up to speed for college.
Take the worst parents and send their kids to the best schools, public ~or~ private and they'll still drop out and not give a *****. - chris4404, on 10/12/2007, -59/+9I liked Steve I really did, but with my Father being a public school teacher I have to say hes now on my ***** list.
- moxx, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6On a random note:
In my school we have IBM's...and they suck...(so note to Jobs/Dell...stop pissing off these people)
----
I wouldn't blame the Unions, they protect the teachers from being completely exploited...
However something is wrong, and something must be done to fix it...I would say, most of the younger teachers I have had so far are great and really make the learning experience enjoyable, (they actually use technology)...rather the older teachers who haven't adapted to newer standards of technology...are the ones that are terrible...minus a couple. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -33/+8Yes, it does suck that ***** teachers are hard to fire... but the positives of teacher's unions far outweight the negatives.
- rqwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -19/+83I actually am a teacher and while I agree that teacher's unions suck half the time, the other half they spend their time making sure teachers, both good and bad, aren't being unfairly treated. I work in a system where I was less of a teacher and more of a means of taking attendance and ensuring that the kids know what's going to be on the next "big" test. How about we fire some kids? How about we make it so that "good" teachers are able to teach and "bad" teachers are easier to identify by getting rid of the idiots that don't want to be there in the first place.
At this point in the year I have a good group of kids who have missed over sixty days of school or have been suspended for over fifteen or come to school just to hang out. Last year I had a kid who I refused to let into class until he convinced me that he was actually in my class. Why? Because in three months I'd only seen him once, and didn't remember him. All the while I had a principal who knew I didn't have any books so I used up all of my allotted copies to copy passages from books, and she refused to give me more copies once the books finally came in January.
I'm just ranting at this point so I'll stop. But all of you people on the whole fire teachers kick (and I believe bad teachers should be removed, but good teachers NEED union protection) need to spend a week babysitting, breaking up fights (which if you get hurt breaking up a fight, you will not be paid because the system isn't liable so you should just let them beat each other into a pulp), getting cursed at (and cursing back), and being spit at among other things. Once you do that, then you can come back and make your remarks. - 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -35/+30Remember everyone
Those that Can't, Teach.
both Gates and Jobs dropped out of college
learning problem solving is critical,
rote memory and repitition is for computers.
how about some standardized teacher tests
its the failures teaching failure
and the cycle continues generation after generation. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4The question with regards to how to manage teachers has everything to do with what provides the students with the best education. Public schools are not a jobs program. It is estimated that in the larger cities, if the national union was removed or if the teachers were part of a local union (meaning controlled by the local teachers only), salaries would average about $65,000. Anyways, Teacher's Union's main priority should be the proper education of the students and any benefits for teachers should only be pursued in that it improves the standard of education. That being said, Steve Jobs is a fascist, so I'm suspicious of his ultimate motivations on this one.
- LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10"All this talk about unions, bad teachers, bad administrators. Yet no talk about bad parenting?
Take a child with great parents and send him to the most worthless public schools in America, they'll do what it takes to get the kid up to speed for college.
Take the worst parents and send their kids to the best schools, public ~or~ private and they'll still drop out and not give a *****."
---
Oh, for *****'s sake, not everything is the parents' fault. I'm sick of this "Blame the parents!" trend that's going on. Sure, a lot of things are the parents' fault but that doesn't mean every single thing relating to a child is also their fault. There are just some things that parents don't have control of.
Do you think how well a child receives their education is solely based on paternal/maternal encouragement? No, that's just one part of the equation. Other factors include school, teachers, environment, peer pressure, and a whole bunch of other things. However, the other big part of the equation is how willing is the child to learn. No amount of encouragement from mom/dad/teacher is going to help some kid learn if he's not willing to.
I don't know how it was with you, but speaking from personal experience and from observation of some friends, I can tell you that how well educated a child is takes BOTH willingness and parental encouragement. Sometimes, one of the two will trump the other (possibly with some help from other factors) but neither of which will ever be the total factor. - macbwizard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Statistically, education majors have some of the lowest SAT scores of any major nationwide. There obviously is a problem with our lower education system.
- rqwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15@4nDr01D: Well how about you do it? "Those that can't, teach." What an *****. Steve Jobs should open a business-oriented school, teach five classes there himself, and he should hire all of you because teaching is actually the easiest job in the world. I mean everyone appreciates what you do. Teachers are respected and revered the world over and they make far too much money. We should be paying to teach, not the other way around.
Sure, there are bad teachers, but there are good teachers as well. I'm certain that none of you assholes had a good teacher, and everything you learned you taught yourself, and you know what the world is proud of you. Now get in there and do my job better than me, because you "can." Douchebag. - kada, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16You know if the teachers unions did not protect bad teachers good teachers could be paid more because there would be incentive to work harder. example. i have one employee who makes 100 dollars a day and one that costs me 20 he costs me 20 because he doesn't bring in sales and i have to pay him to be there but he is not adding benefit. so i fire the bad employee give the good employee 10 more dollars and I'm still making more money. this is one of the key reasons behind support for privatization. i personally think privatization is a bad idea because you have a company more concerned with profits then you child's education. i goto school at a private college and i have to fight for every nickel and dimes worth of my education. Lets face it though no child or at least very few children in K-12 are going to fight for that they'll help in lowering the bar on themselves just like most of us did I'm sure. if i had more knowledge in the matter i would suggest a way to fix the issue but since i do not i cant make a comment in that matter but i do think what needs to happen is a national conference with one elected non government official. so somebody like an educator of the state. and they come up with a comprehensive set of requirements for education including teachers rights and equal access to funds that other governmental agency's have access to. this may also be a bad idea because it could become a permanent ruling council of people we have to pay which would be bad. Lets just face that the fix will not be easy for our education system no matter what the fix is. We do need to fix it though and soon or America is going to be be so screwed its incredible. what happens when your country has only blue collar workers? you become a ***** hole.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60The US needs a voucher system. $7500 on the head of every kid and the parents choose where to send them. Entrepenuers will open up new schools that parents want to send their kids too and the public schools will start changing their ways so every child doesn't leave them and the unionized teachers are out of a job.
Just like when the US post office said it was impossible for overnight delivery, then Fedex, UPS, et al, showed them it wasn't. - 10mm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54"Oh, for *****'s sake, not everything is the parents' fault. I'm sick of this "Blame the parents!" trend that's going on. Sure, a lot of things are the parents' fault but that doesn't mean every single thing relating to a child is also their fault. There are just some things that parents don't have control of."
Everything is the parent's fault. One must learn to take 100% responsibility for your own life, and a parent must take 100% responsibility for their child's until the child is no longer under their guardianship. End of story.
What, should we just throw our hands up and surrender because "it's society's fault"?
It doesnt 'take a village'. It takes a parental backbone. - sw17ch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Goofy as this may sound, if these schools are being run by corporations, lets make them run like that all the way.
Schools are alloted money based on the number of kids that go there. Say we allow kids to go to any school they want to in some area, and not just the one they are assigned. Suddenly, if a school sucks a lot, they loose money, can't stay open and 1) either have to restaff, or 2) close.
Harsh, but it might work. (Yes, I realize Joe PoorKid can't have his parents drive him to school, but think of something better to rip on my post for than that.) - sarazen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6So then, are people ready to demand a choice in where they send their kids to school?
- dani8559, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The lack of proper spelling and concrete arguments in this post is evidence that we need some sort of reform to education in the US.
Either way, I don't think improving education is a matter of "fire this teacher" and "unionize this teacher."
Pick up a copy of the New Yorker from 3 weeks ago and read the article on Manual High School before you decide that transforming schools is as easy as changing this or that. - geniusj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1sw17ch,
Do you not have charter schools in your area? Those are usually corporate owned. - Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I didn't know Steve Jobs or Dell-guy were experts on education.
- ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow, I just got my first shred of respect fir Steve Jobs.
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@zttrx:
You mean "try living on $33k for 3/4 of a year"? The benefits are great, the hours are great, and there is zero accountability in job performance. I guess we should all pity them. I have a new found respect for Steve Job. I will never post another stfu u apple fanboys rant again. Or until I forget about this article tomorrow. - _HAM_, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9 -- "Oh, for *****'s sake, not everything is the parents' fault. I'm sick of this "Blame the parents!" trend that's going on. Sure, a lot of things are the parents' fault but that doesn't mean every single thing relating to a child is also their fault. There are just some things that parents don't have control of."
The parent is 100% accountable for thier child. If you are not willing to be accountable then you need to be sterilized. - jake13jake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wow, well you know, this one teacher at my old high school eventually got fired. It started when he became a loud voice for the Teacher's Union. First they made him a TP teacher, then they made sure all the crazy students that brought weapons to school were in his class, and then they fired him. He obviously did not work at his best with uninspired students, but the administration ignored this. On one occasion, one student even set another student's hair on fire. That student was taking a nap, woke up, got his hair out of fire, and said the other student was dead (what would you say to someone that set your hair on fire?). Then the next day, this student's birthday, he was questioned by the police all day.
With that kind of ***** being pulled? Yea, we need teacher's unions. - Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"The parent is 100% accountable for thier child. If you are not willing to be accountable then you need to be sterilized."
To think that a kid, with a mind of its own, will listen to its parent and consider their influence at all times is not just naive, it's stupid. When do you think your parents stopped being responsible for your actions? For me, I'm pretty sure it wasn't some magic number eighteen *****. It was more of a gradual thing as I grew up. - nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I can't believe how many people out there think that teachers don't get paid enough. According to the American Federation of Teachers, the avg. salary for *9 MONTHS* of work is $46,597 - which, when converted to the 12 months that everyone else has to work is a little over $62,000 - not bad for a 4 year degree and 8-4 workdays.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow this has provided quite the discussion personally I agree completely with Jobs. My wife is a teacher so I'll give my 2 cents like every one else, and we've followed this topic very closely. Ultimately teachers should be judged based on performance, they should be given significant raises for performers and should be fired if they are bad teachers. The teachers unions any more wield too much control. A long time ago they stopped caring about the welfare of the kids they should be teaching.
There is a reason why teachers get paid so little though. It simple supply vs. demand. The supply of teachers is way too large. For every teacher in the school there is another one trying to get a teaching position. If you don't believe me go to an education career fair, there are thousands of licensed teachers that can not get their first job teaching in school.
The problem comes down to district policies which have been set based on the teachers union's input. A teacher that works at a school is very difficult to fire, and current teachers also receive priority for other openings in the district. What this comes down to is rather then getting rid of the bad, they are forced to transfer to a different school. Soon the worst teachers are all in the inner city schools, because district policy is that they receive priority over a new teacher even though all the other principles won't take them.
There was an excellent article in the Washington post about a month ago that described the problems. I was also very impressed with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts because he had the political bravery to say the exact same thing, and at the same time press for raises for teachers and top performers. Of course the unions hated him for it even though he pushed for a larger teacher raise then any governor in a long time. - ChrisWebPub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When I was in high school I had a French teacher who was utterly incompetent. This is high school french and one of our assignments was to watch Disney's Beauty and the Beast, seriously. Not a French version of the movie, we watched it simply because it is a tale that takes place in France.
Even the other teachers hated her, the Spanish teacher who was quite good complained that there is no way they could ever get rid of this woman because of the union. They couldn't even force her to go teach kindergarten (she used to do puppet shows too).
I think we should do two things, do away with teachers unions, and pay teachers more. When I have children in a few years I'm probably going to send them to a private school where teachers both get paid more and can be fired for poor performance.
Of course the responsibility of educating a child falls upon parents, teachers, family. But that doesn't change the fact that teacher's unions protect bad teachers at the expense of tax dollars and our children's futures. - hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ nebrfan
"I can't believe how many people out there think that teachers don't get paid enough. According to the American Federation of Teachers, the avg. salary for *9 MONTHS* of work is $46,597 - which, when converted to the 12 months that everyone else has to work is a little over $62,000 - not bad for a 4 year degree and 8-4 workdays."
When I was a kid in high school, I thought the same way. But once I got out in the real world and had a job, I realized that it's impractical for a teacher to get another serious job for the summer. If they were trained for another serious job in the summer, why not just do it all year long? Otherwise, the best they can do is go out and get some hourly labor job making $10 per hour or something. Also, the really good teachers that I knew spent time over the summer preparing new plans and revising old plans for the upcoming school year.
Also, that $46,597 is the AVERAGE for all teachers. New teachers, and those that have put in 10, 20, 30 years. Starting out, new teachers quite often only make in the $30k range. And if you assume there are equal proportions of new and old teachers, then that means the ones that have been in there for 30 years are only making in the $60k range. That is a pathetic salary for 30 years of work - IF they are doing a GOOD job. And therein lies the problem. All the craptastic teachers drag down the salaries for the good teachers. If the promotion system was truly merit based, the good ones would keep advancing while the bad ones would be stuck at the $30k, $40k range forever. Eventually they would get the message and probably quit. Or, if they stay in the system forever, at least they wouldn't be draining funds that could go to rewarding the good teachers. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Everyone stop and scroll up and read cliffzdude's comment if you haven't already.
Parenting is the core of the problem. I have two children in school and my wife and I try to be active in their education. From firsthand experience, I can tell you the problems in education is caused by parents treating school like free day-care. Sure, there are some not-so-great teachers out there, but the indifference of parents is the real issue (and in many cases, good teachers are hobbled by the lack of support from parents.)
Teachers and teacher unions may have some issues that need addressing but their minor compared to the enormous problems imposed by lazy parenting.
> The parent is 100% accountable for thier child.
As a parent, I agree with you completely. People need to stop pawning off the responsibility of raising their kids on to teachers and the schools. That's lazy. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1> Those that Can't, Teach.
Oh *****! Nearly every professor I had in college and many of the K-12 teachers I had were accomplished to an impressive degree in some field but were teaching in the hope of passing along some of their passion to a new generation of kids. That old thing about teachers being incapable is a load of crap. - LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Everything is the parent's fault. One must learn to take 100% responsibility for your own life, and a parent must take 100% responsibility for their child's until the child is no longer under their guardianship. End of story.
What, should we just throw our hands up and surrender because "it's society's fault"?"
As I said in my post, the parental portion is only a part of the equation. What this means is that while they're not exempt from blame, they're also not completely to blame.
And I'm sorry, but a guardian has 100% responsibility for their child until they're no longer under their guardianship? That's complete ***** and it's exactly what I'm talking about when I say people like to blame parents for everything.
No one has 100% control of anything and, by extension, one can not hold 100% responsibility for everything that happens.
You don't even have 100% control of your own life and if you don't have that, how can you expect to have 100% control of your CHILD'S life? The only time a parent has any semblance of true control over their child's life is in the infancy and toddler stage. Beyond that, to say that the parents is completely to blame for everything to happen is shortsighted.
When a 16-year-old kid decides to take drugs offered to him by his friends, is the parent completely to blame? Perhaps to some extent, but ENTIRELY to blame? Where does the kid's responsibility come in? Another example, a family decides to go on vacation to Mexico. During their stay, their son decides to go meet some local girls and he ends up getting assaulted by a jealous lover. Is it entirely the parents' fault for not following him? Or perhaps because they did not tell him to ask beforehand if the girl is taken and to check for lies? Or perhaps they should have research crime rates in Mexico before going?
I find all of this increasingly ironic. The main reason for all of this "Blame The Parent" deal is because people hate seeing bad parents pass on the blame to another aspect of society for something that people believe they should take responsibility for. The funny part of this is what people hate seeing is parents removing blame from themselves, yet isn't that what people are doing for these kids? No one, except infants and toddlers, are completely helpless in controlling their own life. Everyone, especially starting from when one becomes a teenager, retains the MAIN responsibility for what happens to their own life.
The worst part of all of this is what I view as the hypocrisy. If a man is told by a cop not to go through a forest at night due to the recent news of murder and he does it anyway only end up being killed, will the cop be blamed? I hope not. It's the same case in this situation. You can give your children endless lectures, life experiences, personal examples, but ultimately, it is their choice in the end.
I will repeat what I said in my original post once more: It takes effort from BOTH the parents and the kids for life to be successful. - mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One of my big beefs with unions in general is that in many cases employees are either forced or essentially forced to join unions, which means they are forced to pay union dues. Unions turn around and make partisan political contributions with that money. In a nutshell, union employees are forced to make political contributions. What happens to republican teachers? Teacher unions give almost entirely to democrats. The NEA has NEVER ONCE supported a republican presidential candidate, for example (look it up, it's true). In a sense, republican teachers are being forced to donate money to democrats.
It's not even a republican/democrat thing. Regardless of party, imagine that you are an educator and you are, for whatever reason, opposed to a certain political candidate that your union chooses to give your money to. Seems immoral, to me.
This alone is not at all an argument against teachers unions, but I do think that unions (especially those with forced membership, but probably just all unions) should not be allowed to give money to partisan political causes. I don't know how anyone can disagree with that, but I am sure there are some Diggers here who can prove me wrong. :) - rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A friend of mine, who teaches high school math and science, told me the following:
If you are ever unsure how to vote on a ballot measure regarding public education, just look and see where the Teacher's Union stands on the issue. Then vote the opposite. That will pretty much insure you always vote in the kids' best interests.
- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22 Direct link to article:
- grubesteak, on 10/12/2007, -36/+28He's off base on this one and being a dick about it.
I'm married to a teacher (in a state that doesn't allow teacher's unions) and our experience has been just the opposite. Bad principals and even worse school boards, who don't care about their workers.- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58I'm the son of a teacher so I also have some real world experience.
My mother actually is part of a union and she explains that its horrible when a teacher's aid sucks... It is worse when a teacher sucks... It is even worse than that when a principal sucks... It is even worse than that when someone on the school board sucks...
Moral of the story: the more power the person has, the worse off everyone is underneath them (when they're a moron).... unfortunately the education system has no shortage of morons - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Grubesteak, Did you even read the article? Jobs is saying that teachers suck because administrators can't fire them. Administrators suck because anyone with half a brain won't work in an environment where unions make it impossible for them to get rid of bad teachers.
fta: "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he asked. "Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, 'I can't win.'" - sencha5, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16See, this makes a great debate. I'm personally against teacher's unions because only 15-20% of the people teaching actually have a drive to do it, and inspire results in people. If you were a corporate trainer for the private sector, would you still be in a job if you had the same role for 30 years and gave up on it long ago? Probably not, companies need proper training to remain in business. Why can't we extend that to education?
- mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I think it has been well documented that bureaucracies are inefficient, and what Jobs is saying is that, school administrators can't do their job because they have their hands tie into their backs, because of unions.
The criticism is not been latched at teachers rather at the system in which schools are failing to provide a good education. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Schools should be controlled by the teachers and parents. Period. The money and time wasting layers of bureaucracy is what is destroying the educational system. This includes teacher's unions, of which most decent teachers have serious problems with and whose membership is mandatory. Again, if the schools were not administrative and bureaucratic juggernauts and were controlled solely by the teachers and parents, education would be better off.
- bigblacksabbath, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Schools are too complex to compare to a small business. They are more like large corporations, and in large corporations, it's rarely the fault of a sales clerk that the overall strategy is failing.
There's a lot of concrete research identifying why schools do fail - much like in corporate America, there is data showing why schools fail (economic factors, social factors, resources availability, irrelevant curricula, etc.), but the schools aren't failing because of the teachers. - mbball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Also, I am the son of a teacher, but also a student.
Face it, our school system is horrible. Not only are there bad teachers in my school district(best in the state) that refuse to discipline students according to their actions, but juvenile delinquents too that are destroying other children's shot at a good life. Blame the parents and the teachers. Heck, I have some of the best teachers ever that will teach you anything in order to get you to college and get a job, then there are the teachers who are mentally unstable and are just plain too old to teach.
The unions protect both, the good, and the bad. So, anyone up for inventing a new idea?
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58I'm the son of a teacher so I also have some real world experience.
- snowbooch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+70this title should be more like "Jobs blasts teacher unions, also in attendence Michael Dell"
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Michael WHO ?
I know Jobs invented the Modern Personal Computer and all
but Dell just sold a bunch over a few years
have Dell done anything actually innovative besides their initial pricing, NO
either way this is two tech heavyweights
saying what we all know
our School System SUCKS! - SNudds, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Dell will eventually beat Apple. Apple, IBM, etc do all of the innovating and Dell profits from thier work. Pretty soon the innovations will dry up and Dell will cash in. Mark my words.
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5
More like: "Jobs blasts teacher unions while Michael Dell sucks up to teachers unions hoping to take more market share away from Apple's traditional market."
Is it just me or is Jobs turning into a conservative in his older years? The guy used to be a full-on liberal, of the Atari-Democrat (look up the term) persuasion back in the 1980s. Now, who knows? Apple did give financial contributions to Gov. Schwarzenegger's reform of California's workers compensation a couple of years back...
- CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@lynxpro: How does the cliche' go? Something like, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 50, you have no brain."
- xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lynxpro "Is it just me or is Jobs turning into a conservative in his older years? The guy used to be a full-on liberal, of the Atari-Democrat (look up the term) persuasion back in the 1980s. Now, who knows? Apple did give financial contributions to Gov. Schwarzenegger's reform of California's workers compensation a couple of years back..."
That's funny I am a liberal and I don't agree that people get a free ride. If someone isn't doing their job right they should be let go. From personal experience I can say that it can sometimes be a favor for the person being let go. - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@CamperBob
The cliche you speak of is paraphrasing from a famous Churchill quote.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Michael WHO ?
- mitchconnerr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Great point to be made with this one.
@grubesteak you have a very valid point about bad principals and school boards, however, working in the school system myself, there are MANY MANY bad teachers as well and both sides feed into the entire problem.
Dont get me wrong there are some VERY good and caring teachers as well but they are truely outnumbered.
The new motto for education over the last 10 years in the U.S. is simply summed up by this --
"Lower the standards"- UberC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9As less and less people want to babysit your bratty, punkass kids, I guess the standards have to be lowered or there would be 70 psychotic, Ritalin-fuled teenagers in each class.
- SNudds, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1It's the principle's fault that the teacher isn't any good. Instead of trying to fire them, why not try to make them better? The unions are just making sure that bad teachers get thier fair share, just like the good ones.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34summed up as
bad teachers = lower education standerds
unions protect the bad teachers
thus get rid of union- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7We have to be wary of solutions that cause more problems than they solve. Unions protect bad teachers, but that isn't their sole intent or effect.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18"Unions protect bad teachers, but that isn't their sole intent or effect."
You're right, their sole intent and effect is to overpay bad teachers AND protect them from being fired. Oh, and they funnel millions of dollars to politicians to pass laws making it easier for them to overpay bad teachers. - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I live in a union-free state for teachers, Virginia, because teachers are considered integral part of the state and cannot join unions or strike, unless they want to violate state law. And according to this random study: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank06.htm Virginia is ranked 6th, which isn't too shabby. (It doesn't hurt that Thomas Jefferson and Maggie Walker are in top 10 schools in the nation).
But I feel like a lot of teachers are getting the short of the end of stick. Funding for them has always fallen through. It's always in the papers about how education and teacher raises get shunted to road repairs and random bridges. It was a major victory last year that the lottery money would finally be alloted to education, which was promised for the last seven years. Somehow, the money kept on disappearing.
I used to visit a lot of other high schools in Virginia for academic and athletic reasons, and I'd always run into teachers buying stuff for their students with their own paycheck, because the school doesn't have enough money to support them. It's not like the principals don't want to give the money, but they don't have it to give.
So, the flip side without unions is that teachers don't get a choice or voice. Most of teachers I've met really love thier job. They care. They honestly do. How many people would be open to tutoring from 5 AM to 7 AM and 2 PM to 8 PM? Or stay until 11 PM to help a group of theatre students finish? Or invite us to her house for dinner during exam week? I had those high school teachers, and the amount of money they made was paltry. The only way they could earn more than the small raises each year was to get a PhD or National Board Certification, which were an major investment and they could probably get more money doing something else, but they didn't. They loved teaching and felt they were doing something that was important.
A lack of unions isn't too helpful here. Of course, but the altenate isn't that much better. I guess it's the same for everything. When anything grows to a certain extent, it all goes downhill. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Mechanic: "Hi. So what's wrong with the car?"
You: "The breaks don't work so well anymore."
Mechanic: "Looks like the pads are worn out. I'll replace them."
You: "Can't you just remove the breaks completely?"
Mechanic: "!!?!!?!?!!" - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@questionable
It seems that, because your state doesn't allow teacher unions, the only teachers are those who truly love to teach. Whereas, if you had (large, corrupt) teacher unions, they may protect bad teachers and allow them to remain in the system. Obviously, it would be great to help out those who love to teach, like the teachers you've seen. But unions are not the answer to that. Personalyl, I advocate school choice, which I believe would allow good teachers to be rewarded and bad teachers to be kicked out of the system. - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well not to be an ass but New Jersey is placed fourth by same poll and is tied for second with Mas. for highest number of high school grades that go to college and does have teachers unions.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@questionable;
sorry for not having the reference on hand, but Virginia was also listed as the #1 state in the country in terms of the chances of a successful life for the state's children.
- korashime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29We are churning out morons with factory like efficiency. Somethings got to give!
- SvenHammerstahl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Something already has: the quality of education offered in schools.
- grunion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Make academics a bit more like the real world - enable good teachers to be rewarded, and the bad to be rewarded appropriately as well. Personally, if Jobs is going to seize some sort of bully pulpit on this issue, I really wish he'd push school choice. That way his vision of bookless classrooms could come to pass and could compete directly with the traditional model. The winner should be obvious over time, and the competition would drive ALL types of teaching forward and benefit all schoolchildren.
Yes, I DO happen to agree with John Stossel's "Stupid in America" thank you.- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@grunion,
Amen to that. It is unfortunate that the very political groups that SHOULD be for the economic underdogs are supporting their demise. Competitive schools raise all. (the converse is true also) People with children who can afford to choose where they live make local school quality a major factor in their decision. (ask any Realtor) Those on the lower end of the economic scale have a lot less choice about where they can live. Thus their main factor is affordability. (pragmatically, not because they really want to live in a neighborhood with an under performing school.) At the very LEAST we should have school choice for people making under $X dollars per year.Those people should be given a voucher equal to what the public school receives for their children. That voucher would be good at any school. (public or private; Supreme Court already ruled this is legal) They could use it at the school they normally attend if they wish. Schools would improve and the customer (students) would benefit. Utah recently put in a program like this into law. - jasonj75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Link.... http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
This quote from the article says it all...
"Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."
Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers."
I have no doubt that unions are full of people wanting to do good things for children, but they've taken their eye off the ball and now equate what is good for the teacher = good for the student. - JettaMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Grunion: Steve Jobs supports a voucher system of schooling instead of public schools. The theory is that when parents have a choice of where they spend the money, they tend to choose better over worse. With privately owned schools, the bad ones would go out of business/go under new management. The system would steadily improve, rather than staying at this level of mediocrity. That's the theory anyway. I tend to agree with it, since it seems like the worst private school is always better than the best public school. I mean, would you rather send your kids to a private school or a public school?
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Private :) So, I believe a voucher system (perhaps combined with the privatization of public schools?) would make sense, as it would make public schools into private schools.
- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@grunion,
- grubesteak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@mitchconnerr
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the number of bad teachers "truly outnumber" the good ones?
Good employees start with good leadership. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The problem is teachers aren't paid enough to tempt competent people to accept the jobs. This is why you can never find a decent computer teacher in school. If you have the skills you can get paid at least twice as much somewhere else. The only people who accept the teaching jobs are the ones who cannot get a job anywhere else. Either that or a retired industry professional that just wants to get out of the house once in awhile.
- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, then schools should make it attractive to get those indistry professionals at least on a part time basis.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3maybe they should get a real degree, or skill that wouldnt require them to teach
- dickybrown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I disagree - to me, working til 3 each day and having the entire summer off and lots of other holidays is a part time job (I acknowledge there's headaches associated with dealing with kids all day, but most jobs have similar stresses)
When I graduated college, the money I made working for a large accounting firm was very close to a friend of mine who started teaching in a public HS - when you add in his coaching money, he actually came out ahead.
I think they made damn good money for the amount of time worked - the downside is that they're going to get 3-4% raises for life... - Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Where i live on average teachers make about 45,000. The PERS is way better than any private sector offers.With all the days off and summer vacation whats not to like?People are in line to get a state run job like that. Heres some advice, if you dont like your job get a new one.Theres a line of people waiting for yours.
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Mekun
If you live in California, the public school teachers belong to the CalSTRS retirement system, and not the superior CalPERS system that most State employees, the legislators and their staff, firefighters, law enforcement, and county employees belong to.
CalSTRS actually blows for the most part, yet it would take a major legislative shakeup or proposition to dismantle them and give the existing funds and responsibilities over to the more successful CalPERS.
You can check them out at:
www.calpers.ca.gov
or
www.calstrs.ca.gov - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@dickybrown
You know its not really and 8-3 job since teachers have to then go home grade tests, homework, read papers, create tests, grade projects, tutor students, create lesson plans. All this work is done after you thought they got off work.
- adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5This seems a little odd considering that Jobs is such a big democrat supporter and teacher unions are one of the groups that they pander to.
- valvin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Perhaps because he's one of the few people in this country that cares about issues, not political affiliation?
- jprater, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17my wife is a teacher. she is in the teacher's union b/c it's a requirement. why the general public thinks the us is full of such bad teachers is besides me. there are VERY FEW bad teachers. my wife has had many problems with the administrators for her school. they have some of the craziest ideas. if you are an administrator and have a PhD, then you are god. her principal said this: "all kids are the same. it doesn't matter where or how they are raised--all kids are the same". my wife teaches in a lower section of town. most of her kids are not well behaved, do not listen, and have many discipline problems. however, the kids who come from better neighborhoods are generally better behaved and listen better. her principal has a freakin PhD!! and she says ***** like this!! the us does not have bad teachers--WE HAVE BAD ADMINISTRATORS!!! for christ's sake, my wife's school doesn't even have a discipline plan!! and to make things worse, my wife's teaching abilities is based on how well her students score on the CRCT test. her class is full of kids that get no help outside of school and have a small chance on passing that test. but if she has many kids that fail the test, she will get blamed for it. there is only so much our teachers can do. she is constantly spending her evenings doing lesson plans, finding activities, etc. i hardly ever get to see he b/c she's always doing work for school. she's always constantly buying ***** for school as well. the school seems to think that teachers are required to provide EVERYTHING for their classrooms. DON'T BLAME TEACHERS---BLAME THE SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS, ADMINISTRATORS BUT NOT THE TEACHERS!
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I will point out that the NEA isn't really a teacher's union per se. It's a government schooling cartel, whose members include all of the administrators who are getting in your wife's way. The teachers are at the bottom of the pecking order, just like the truckers in the Teamsters' union.
-jcr - scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Certainly, their are a ton of bad administrators. I bet the ratio of good to bad administrators is worse than that of teachers. You have hit the nail on the head with one of the major problems in schools today.
- doctorcaligari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@jprater
As a teacher, I find your comment mostly correct. I get to work with the entire school system, from teacher assistants to assistant superintendents, and I see inefficiencies and ineffectiveness at every level. There are many good, hardworking people at every level, and then there are bad apples that make everything harder.
The biggest problem that I see at the school level today is discipline, or the lack thereof. Lack of discipline can destroy a school, and it really depends on the administrator of that school. I have seen very tight ships fall to pieces in 6 months because a good disciplinarian was promoted to another school, and lenient first-timer brought in as a replacement. At the elementary level, I have seen students punch and claw teachers worse than some adults, and 5-year olds who brought needles to school to "prick" (stab) students and teachers. In all of the cases, little was done to the students.
To sum it up: How is the teacher supposed to teach, the students learn, if the administrative levels refuse to provide a safe environment? - jprater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ doctorcaligari
all she hears about discipline is the teacher needs to have a discipline plan. the only thing she can do is tell her studens to turn a card over (only 1st graders). well, that may work about 1% of the time. she will send a note home and the students will not get in any trouble. she she asks for advice from the principal, she basically gives her a complete run around. four years of college taught her nothing about disciple and apparently a woman with a PhD can't either. - SOAB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12My wife is also a Teacher. Yes the Admins are totally out of touch. But the biggest problem is Tenure for both Admins and the Teachers. Where else can you not be fired for doing a poor job ? My Wife comes home sometimes in tears over the lousy teaching that goes on at her school. The Admins can't fire these burnouts and floaters waiting for retirement. The kids pay the price. She winds up tutoring other Teachers students for hours after school long after the burnouts have gone home. Calif tried to extend the Tenure period from two to five years a couple years back and were soundly rebuffed by the Unions. Being a Union member (closed shop) she refused work phone banks working to defeat it. She and I both voted for it but it didn't pass. Guess as long as the Unions a running education in Calif the situation will remain the same. Sad... :-(
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Agreed. We need a market based system where good teachers get promoted and paid better, while bad teachers get canned. Just like an effiecient business.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Calif tried to extend the Tenure period from two to five years a couple years back and were soundly rebuffed by the Unions."
The Unions were against the extension of tenure? WTF? - JTen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um, I'm fresh out of high school, and I went to a high school that was rated in the top ten in California for most the years I attended it (it was a junior high and high school) and there are some BAAAAAD teachers. I remember one teacher in particular that taught 7th grade math, she literally didn't teach, she'd put up all the notes on the board before school and then just sit and do paperwork during class. Sure you could say it doesn't make her a bad teacher, but then lets add this to the equation, she didn't care what her students did. They ran around like douchebags, made the loudest of noises, and ran around campus (until they were seen by a teacher/administrator and told to go back to class with the threat of a Saturday slip). They not only disturbed the classes around them, but those students didn't learn *****. They spent the better part of the next few years playing catch-up in math, or they just failed her class outright. At our school, we could tell from two minutes of math class who had that particular teacher in the past, and who didn't. Oh and let me remind you, it was in the top ten schools for the state of California, it was a good school with (for the most part) students who were really good (drugs sure, but nearly 100% into colleges, no guns/knives/etc, and so on). As you might guess, our math wasn't our strongest front in those state tests.
Oh and lets not forget to add all those pervert teachers, I could name and PROVE more than two pervert teachers from the top of my head that I've had in the past (and SEVERAL more that I never had, that taught that two different high schools, but I know from friends who currently have them as teachers or did in the past) that regularly engage in sexual harassment of some sort with their students. It's sad because the students know the teacher cannot be fired (there are complaints all the time and all that happens is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist or a time out) and they fear their grades will be purposely lowered.
I've been out of high school for two years now, and I've worked with politics in my city, in private the board of trustees for our school district admit that they can't really do anything, even though they are all concerned. Principles are the same. It's beyond sad, because we aren't only screwing up students educations, we're screwing up America as a whole. - RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Where else can you not be fired for doing a poor job ?"
Post Office. That's where I got my taste of what a union is & why to hate them.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I will point out that the NEA isn't really a teacher's union per se. It's a government schooling cartel, whose members include all of the administrators who are getting in your wife's way. The teachers are at the bottom of the pecking order, just like the truckers in the Teamsters' union.
- ambrosious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He has a point. Although unions can be very a good thing, and I agree they are a very necessary institution - the current state of teaching unions has gotten very out of hand. In grade school I had some teachers that were so unqualified and acted so unprofessionally it was border-line child abuse. I remember one year in 6th grade there was a huge struggle between the PTA, the principle, and the entire school district in trying to fire a teacher because finally after 20 years of horrible teaching there was enough of an outcry from the community to do something about it. If schools were like any kind of privatized institution there would be more selectivity, which would mean a better education for the students.
If schools recieved a) more funding, b) the ability to distribute that funding to qualified individuals, and c) a more democratic (checked and balanced) system for electing/firing teachers, the students would benefit tremendously.- nstanosheck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yet parochial schools who as a rule have less money per student tend to do and behave better. I do not think throwing money at the situation is a good plan at all. In CT the average teacher salary is $53,000.00. How is paying more going to help the students?
- mrgarza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5the principals lack the power to remove bad KIDS from schools. They make everyone suffer.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Steve Jobs: Teachers Unions suck, we must revolt!
Michael Dell. Me too! - chicoer2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Our education system is based n tests, tests, tests. Teachers teach so their student gets a good score. It's like robots in a classroom
- Bansuri, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3And what system do you suggest we use to determine a student's understanding of a subject?
- RonAcierno, on 02/07/2008, -10/+11How the hell are teachers underpaid? They only work 9 months out of the year ... plus AT MOST 5 days a week not including Multiple weeks worth of holiday vacation. Think about how many 3 day weekends students have. Then, to make the situation worse, there job is really only as hard as they make it out to be. Its there choice if they give out 3 worksheets for there class to do and they have to grade them, a lot of teachers are slackers and just tell the students to read. I know this from personal experience. I am currently a 12 grade student.
And that post about teachers having to pay 1/3 of there pay for school supplies is *****!!! I go to a private high school and our teachers are paid much less them public school teachers in my area and they dont buy *****.
Conclusion-
-Average Salary in the US is about 40k and thats for a full year 40+ hour week
-33,000 for only working like 9 months (180 days or so) and only 35 hours a week is NOT bad,(and to make it worse teachers almost always have free periods) its not like the job is physically demanding
Just My Opinion- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Well said. I work in private industry and 40 hours a week for 49 weeks a year is the norm. I would love to have the benefits package that the public school teachers get, but I am unwilling to work in that atmosphere.
- kreyon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5a recent WSJ article addressed teacher pay on a "per hour" basis. Feb 2 article, her'es a few paragraphs from the article:
Title of article was "Is $34.06 per hour 'underpaid'?"
Who, on average, is better paid -- public school teachers or architects? How about teachers or economists? You might be surprised to learn that public school teachers are better paid than these and many other professionals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, public school teachers earned $34.06 per hour in 2005, 36% more than the hourly wage of the average white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty or technical worker.
In the popular imagination, however, public school teachers are underpaid. "Salaries are too low. We all know that," noted First Lady Laura Bush, expressing the consensus view. "We need to figure out a way to pay teachers more." Indeed, our efforts to hire more teachers and raise their salaries account for the bulk of public school spending increases over the last four decades. During that time per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has more than doubled; overall we now annually spend more than $500 billion on public education. - jprater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12my wife is a teacher and she spends several thousands of dollars a year on school supplies the school will not buy. she has to completely decorate her entire classroom b/c the school will not buy posters. plus she is teaching the ENTIRE day. The only time she can do her planning, lesson plans, get activities together, or other pointless stuff the administration wants is after school from like 4-7. with all the extra time she spends working, she spends just as much time a year as i do. if anything, teacher's are greatly under paid and under appreciated. plus she is required to go to classes during the summer to maintain and retain her teaching certificate. where people get this idea that teacher's hardly work is besides me.
she used to work in a private school and was paid much less. the private school also paid for everything as well. she did not have to pay any money out of pocket for anything. - phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You obviously haven't thought about how much grading a teacher has to do.
From tests to homework to papers to finals, they have to grade them. I remember my AP Econ teacher in high school would tell us about the grading she did when we asked her about her weekend. It made my weekend of homework seem like a heck of a lot less work.
So yeah, it's nine months out of the year. But they work non-stop, and if a teacher sponsors some extra-curricular activity (this is the sign of a teacher who cares), then they are doing even more.
Ferrar1 - I know you think you understand the entire world at 18. Trust me - you don't.
Please don't ever say that teachers aren't hard working. The truth is that it is exactly the opposite. - rqwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yes we are underpaid and I'll tell you why.
1. More than a third of my pay goes toward making sure that I have supplies in my room. Not decorations (although the administration "encourages" well decorated classrooms), but supplies like paper, pens, pencils, copies, extra uniform shirts, pencil sharpeners, folders, index cards, etc. I don't get that money back and the recipients of the supplies generally fly through them without thought.
2. Economists and architects don't work the entire time. I have five classes averaging 32 kids per class (with 28 desks thanks), plus hall duty, plus "professional development", minus the union mandated 28 minute lunch, plus three hours after work grading and planning, minus the union mandated 1 hour prep time (which is often taken up with "professional development" meetings), plus another hour for parent/student conferencing.
3. Quoting scubajim: "I would love to have the benefits package that the public school teachers get, but I am unwilling to work in that atmosphere." Bing-*****-o. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Though the current manifestation of teachers' union is a problem, there are bigger problems. One is that with all Federal taxes put together, almost every community's disposable income goes straight to the Federal government with little left over to fund schools, social programs, anything really. Each community and state must beg the Federal government for their money back, and often times, when they receive that money, it comes with counterproductive requirements that often cost more to implement and manage than the money received. As for the work a teacher has to perform, it is silly to suggest that teachers don't have an astronomical amount of work to do.
- darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Think about how many 3 day weekends students have."
I work for a public high school (not a teacher) and let me tell you this. The majority of those 3 day weekend for at least public high schools the teachers are having some sort of in-service day. Yesterday was one for our high school, all the students were home and the teachers were there. I know this because regardless of no-school during the weekday I am there. On holiday break such as Christmas Break, there are a lot of teachers that come in on days of those 2 weeks and get work done and this includes summer vacation as well. So until you are at your school all year round (Summer included) you don't need to comment on how much they work.
I am not saying that all teachers work like this. Most of the good ones in my school do, however there is always the few bad ones that should have been fired long ago.
Not only do they have to teach but they also have to babysit because some people are to immature to sit there an learn.
Generally, I am not a fan of Steve Jobs, but I think his statement was quite well said. Good job! - zoom1928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And no state requires teachers to have to teach more than half of the year. In this state it is 180 days a year, and where I grew-up they usually taught no more than 160 days due to snow days and significantly less when they got lazy and decided to not show-up to work as a group(strike).
My wife leaves for work an hour after I do and gets home three hours before I do. She works 180 days a year while I worked 363 last year. She complains constantly about making "only" $65k per year, which is great money here in SC, while I make over $90k. She isn't smart enough to comprehend that she makes a hell of a lot more per hour than I do. I make $24.79 per hour while she makes $60.19 per hour. She and her fellow teachers still whine constantly about how they're not paid enough. I am tired of hearing teachers whine about only making $60/hour here in SC. That is great money, and the teachers are showing their extreme stupidity by thinking whining about it publicly doesn't make them look like idiots. - marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I have two sisters and a brother-in-law all teachers and they never say anything about pay. They see the amount of work normal people do and relish the fact they have time off in the summer.
Yes teachers have to buy some supplies but who ever says it is more than a few hundred dollars is lying.
I too have to buy things for work every year that my employer doesn't cover (construction) and here is a summary of the items I bought last year (funny I was just looking at this yesterday while doing my taxes)
Tools = $550.00
Supplies (items not on work site) = $500.00
Working clothing that lasts maybe half of a year because of working not fashion = $200.00
Truck maintenance = $200.00
Fuel (other than driving back and forth to work site) = $3,000.00
Laptop (replace every few years) = $2,000.00
Cell Phone bill = $80.00 per month
Not working during the summer unless you want to = Priceless
- wilhoitm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Michael Dell should close up the company and give the money back to the stock holders.
- darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Must be a Mac person. Every buy a bunch of Dell computers? or a bunch of HP computers? Try doing both and see who you go with. Right now, not only are Dell computers a lot better and less faulty than a lot of HP computers but their tech support is so much better than HP could ever hope to be (personal experience).
For a company that sells Windows based PC's Dell deserves to be on top. - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@darkecho
Stay on topic. The poster you were replying to was reversing Michael Dell's snide comment a decade ago about how Apple should just close down and give all of its money to its shareholders. In no way was that related to HP. You brought up HP, and since you assume the original poster is a Mac fan, he/she would not give a krap about HP regardless.
I will say a few good things about HP though. At least they contribute money to R&D. They do fund development of UNIX - albeit their own variant - and until they decided to turn over their processor designs to Intel, they actually did contribute in that segment to the industry. Dell does nothing of the sort. All they are is a glorified screwdriver shop churning out cheap product that has basically Walmartified the computer industry. The Windows PC segment of the industry has dramatically suffered because the brand companies have withdrew series R&D money and preferred to rely upon Microsoft, Intel/AMD, and the graphics card companies to do all the R&D themselves. And that is why all of us, in one way or another, depend upon companies like Apple to shake things up because there is no longer room for a scrappy Compaq (when they first started out), AST, Atari, or Commodore Amiga to jump into the frey with true innovations.
- darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Must be a Mac person. Every buy a bunch of Dell computers? or a bunch of HP computers? Try doing both and see who you go with. Right now, not only are Dell computers a lot better and less faulty than a lot of HP computers but their tech support is so much better than HP could ever hope to be (personal experience).
- vardhan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6SUMMARY: incompetent teachers, not students. the declining rate of intelligence among the population is because of incompetent teachers.
I'm probably going to be dugg down for this, but take it from a high school student himself (currently grade 11):
My school is FILLED with horrible failures. Our former principle hired a bunch of her friends, and they were just horrible. Sure, they had a degree for university of Toronto, but they couldn't teach. There is a difference between having expertise in a subject, and being able to teach it to teenagers.
My CS (computer teacher) was *really* horrible. He had 3 degrees completely unrelated to CS (history..). He never used to teach. He just used to just put his notes on the overhead and make us copy it down. Then he gave us assignments and just left the classroom. If we ever asked him a question, he would tell us to figure it out our self, and that "it is the best way to learn"..
The physics teacher wasn't as bad, but he still sucks. Same thing.. just overheads. Doesn't explain everything. Everyone ends up reading the textbook. If we asked him a question, he'd tell us it's in our notes. If it wasn't in our notes, then he'd tell us it isn't part of this course and that we don't need to worry about it..
Now, that brings me to the main idea -- As a hobbyist programmer, I hear this a lot -- "the population is getting stupider by the day." Wrong. Well actually, it's right, but there's a reason -- There isn't anyone competent enough to teach us.- jprater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5it's b/c your principal is hiring asshats. again, it's not the teachers' faults it your principal's.
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@jprater:
Which principle? It's likely that a teacher who's become that burnt out or irrelevant has been there far longer then the current administration.
They may have been perfect when they were hired. But imagine a job where you are only compensated more based on tenure and you can't be fired. Thus, you have no incentive to actually perform and if you change careers because you are burnt out you lose your tenure.
Besides, that basic logic is just off. If a teacher sucks, it's still that teachers fault, regardless of who hired them. - phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Vardhan
I had a few of those teachers in high school. It sucked. But if you can start figuring out how to teach yourself material now... man, you will be set for college. Some of my professors are very intelligent, but they just can't teach. - rqwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vhold: I'm sure it's because your teacher sucked, but I believe you meant principal....unless you were discussing the lack of principles in teaching.
- dajhorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The teachers' union in Canada is one of the most powerful unions in North America -- just look up the value of their pension fund, if you work for a public company they probably own part of you -- but primary and secondary education in Canada is still considered much better than American. This is not a union problem, it is a cultural and economic problem: Americans just don't value education enough to pay for it.
My sister is a teacher in Brampton. Base pay at that board is near $45,000 with comprehensive benefits and perqs, and a teacher can often get a 2k-5k raise for each university credit earned in continuing education. The pay scale maxes out near $90,000, after which you need to get a masters degree or move into the bureaucracy. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I started school a couple weeks late my freshmen year of high school, and as a result of there being no room left in any other English classes, I was put into the class of the worst teacher in the school.
She only had around 10 students but like 4 teacher's aides, the only assignment we were ever given was to -copy- the grammar text book, word for word and she spent most of her time staring off into space or having her aides completely cover every inch of the room with black history posters; I can only assume she did this so if she were ever somehow fired she could claim the administration was racist.
The one advantage of her gross incompetence was that we actually took her grade book and changed our scores when she left the room, and were never caught for doing this. I once actually asked her why she didn't even attempt to teach us anything and her response was: "The book is sponsored by the state, so the book is better then me."
My senior year, when I was doing basically volunteer work for the district building/administrating computer labs, I was actually approached on separate occasions by the principle and another English teacher, both times they came to apologize that I had been put into that class and explained to me that this woman would have been fired in an instant if it were possible under the union. As I became more of an employee and less of a student I found out that the vast majority of the faculty absolutely loathed this woman. Apparently she had been doing this for a few decades and all they could do was try to give her as few students as possible.
She is not currently listed on ratemyteachers.com, and I find it hard she would actually ever retire from a job in which all she did was collect a pay check, so perhaps she was promoted or has died. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think the problem is twofold:
1. We do not pay out teachers enough to encourage more than the truly dedicated.
2. There is little accountability even if there is.
The solution, therefore, is a combination of the No Child Left Behind act with proper funding. I don't support Bush on a lot of things, but I do support attempting to measure how our children are doing. The problem is, when a school does badly, instead of increasing the funds to get the more experienced teachers and better books and such that that school needs.
Right now, the poorest schools only attract either the newest teachers (who tend to move on after getting enough experience to go to a high paying school - see "Shame of the Nation") or the most dedicated. By making education a high enough priority to pay the teachers who are honestly trying a wage high enough to attract others, and making it easier to replace the poorly performing teachers, we can have increases.
Side note: Yes, I know there are some areas that will be difficult to show increases because of a history of bad performance, so I know there will be areas that do badly regardless of the teachers. But in those cases, I think some leeway and time should be given. It will take almost an entire generation to bring up the worst areas, so of course discretion should be used in individual cases.- jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The teachers union is evil and the one exact reason I am not teacher and changed my major my junior year.
Bad teachers should be paid less or fired. Good teachers should be paid more. That would be enough incentive to get good teachers and keep them in the system.
The unions are exactly why teachers don't get paid enough because they require teachers to be paid and equally poor amount. - blankman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think teachers get paid plenty for what they do. Granted, they make less money than those who receive a similar level of education to do their jobs, but they only work 6-7 hours per day. They get full benefits, they get just about every holiday off. They get Christmas vacation, February vacation, spring break. Then after all that, they get summer vacations for 2-3 months. And on top of this, they have the protection of the union. They can even (at least in my town) take a years paid leave. They may start off in the $20,000-30,000 range, but their pay goes up significantly after 5-10 years of teaching.
Teachers really have it made, and they continue to receive more and more benefits ever time it comes time to renew their contracts. - wando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@blankman
Are you kidding me? 6-7 hours per day? My dad is a teacher and there are times that he goes into work at 6am and does not get home until 7pm. In Wisconsin the mandatory work hours are from 7:45 to 3:45, that is 8 hours, not 6 or 7. Either learn more about the topic that you are posting about or don't post at all.
- jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The teachers union is evil and the one exact reason I am not teacher and changed my major my junior year.
- diggthisman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@zttrx
"But then who would teach?"
UH, the ones who really care and want to teach? DUH. - alex1432, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Getting rid of bad teachers is just the first step.. Then you need competent principles who would be able to attract good teachers. Just getting rid of bad teachers isn't going to help anyone.
- BassMastr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Show me an industry/sector that has unions that hasn't been screwed up. Unions were great back in the day when they were needed. Now they just ***** ***** up...
Baseball
Teachers
Airlines
Manufacturing (look at the auto industry)
I have an electrician buddy who spends every 4th week unemployed b/c of his union. (granted he's guaranteed work the other 3 weeks.)
The list goes on and on...
Granted I know I don't know all the unions out there...that's why I asked...show me one that hasn't screwed up the industry they are involved with. - endgame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Those of you complaining about teachers not getting paid enough are CRAZY. In LAUSD the second largest school district in the country a beginning teacher fresh out of college with no experience starts at 64K per year. Each year they get a merit increase & IF they decide to "specialize" then they get another bump. They can max out as a teacher within the first 6 years at 86K per year.
- BassMastr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Dont forget 2-3 months vacation a year...
- jprater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5maybe in la but in georgia it's 34k
- MrShifty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It doesn't matter how much money you make if you don't make enough to live comfortably in your area. 86K is HUGE where I live (the median house costs $200,000 and rent for a two bed/two bath house is around $700 a month), but in a lot of places, 86K is nothing. My mom has been a teacher for twenty years and she makes ~$37K, which, after taxes, goes almost entirely to bills (cars, mortgage, insurance, utilities).
It's reasonable to argue that there are crappy teachers, but the only way to get better teachers is to raise the pay to attract bright minds and be ready to fire the mediocre ones. - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You also live in LA, with the standard of living is higher.
The question is, how much would they have to pay you to get a job as a teacher? Would 64k suffice for you? - wando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@EndGame
Did you ever think that the reason that they get paid so much is because of the cost of living and the fact that as you said it is the second largest school district in the country? In most parts of the country a first year teacher will be lucky to make much more that 30K/year. In Wisconsin many make less than 28K.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5There arent enough teachers in the US let alone good teachers.Firing teachers is such an ass backwards approach to the problem of underfunded public schools.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4digg has been taken over by idiots, how can anybody digg down the fact that isnt enough teachers in the public school system?
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3after reading some of these comments, its clear its the neocons.
- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Myth. Pure myth. The schools aren't underfunded. They are poorly managed. They have NO incentive to be efficient. Since the 1960's the amount of $'s per student on an inflation adjusted basis has gone up over 300%. So I guess the schools were destitue in the 1960's. (yeah right)
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2reality is a myth with you neocons
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In all fairness the school system does suck.
- eidolons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While I'm not a teacher myself I know many high school teachers in public schools. Do you folks realize what kind of students teachers have to contend with? Many students are entirely apathetic and very rebellious and disrespectful to teachers. It is an extremely difficult environment to teach in. While you may have some "gems" that shine through and actually care, mandatory public education attendance is not something that comes lightly to many youths. The common denominator in public classrooms is oftentimes a very low nadir that - especially given these kids are the "cool" ones -- leads to anything but teaching.
I have the utmost respect for anybody who can teach in these environments (and with this I mean ANY classroom ANYWHERE be it suburb or city) and not get immediately burnt out. I'm shocked to think that folks like Steve Jobs lament the strength of teacher's unions and ignore the common root of this problem. I don't think it's even the kids themselves - they're young, awkward, and it's natural to be difficult at that time. It's the idea of institutions themselves and finding a means to generically educate kids. Teachers need more support as is. I had many tenored teachers at high school, and many of them were incredibly smart. Unfortunately, their students were oftentimes too focused on being little pricks to care, and of course the classrooms were oftentimes chaotic as a result. Does that make them "bad" teachers? No. It's just that most of those kids couldn't care less, and even if they did, they have all the stresses of popularity and other stuff that takes the forefront to their education.
- eidolons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While I'm not a teacher myself I know many high school teachers in public schools. Do you folks realize what kind of students teachers have to contend with? Many students are entirely apathetic and very rebellious and disrespectful to teachers. It is an extremely difficult environment to teach in. While you may have some "gems" that shine through and actually care, mandatory public education attendance is not something that comes lightly to many youths. The common denominator in public classrooms is oftentimes a very low nadir that - especially given these kids are the "cool" ones -- leads to anything but teaching.
- wlloydda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6!!! YESSS !!!
Vouchers are the only hope to reform the educational system. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just as long as he doesn't shave his head. No, wait ... nevermind.
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Jobs is a total arse.
While Gates is spending real money on making better schools, while being critical too, this pompous twit just gets on stage and "blast" teachers.
And guess who the press is going to shower with praise on?
Just like with DRM, maybe Jobs needs to put his money where his mouth is on this issue too.- DrStephanHeimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2flag564 is a total arse
While many intelligent Digg readers are working to make Digg better, while being critical too, this pompous twit just gets on and blasts apple for no reason.
Hope you enjoy DRM flag564 because the more you put your money where Gates Wallet is the more your gonna get....... No matter where on Gates you offer to put your mouth.
- DrStephanHeimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2flag564 is a total arse
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Here's the problem with public schools...note to Democrats: socialism doesn't work! It is horribly inefficient and wasteful. You always end up with strange bureaucracies that grow to enormous size and then topple due to the cost of administration. The problem with schools is that WAY too much money is wasted on administration and not enough gets to the teachers and the students, and that is ultimately the result of the socialistic system we use.
Schools need to be run like a business, and the parents need to foot the bill. Make administration and delivery of services more efficient and costs will go down. Make the schools compete for students. Services will improve, quality will improve, bad teachers will be fired, good teachers will be rewarded, bad schools will close. Of course, massive tax breaks would need to coincide with such a plan. It would fail if parents had to pay exorbitant taxes in addition to school tuition.
Schools have a problem with accountability. The parents have no say in how their children are educated or treated because our school system is a virtual monopoly run by the government. It's this desire for accountability that has led to nationwide testing. The parents (the voters) feel like they have no control over what the schools are doing to their kids, so they vote for measures that demand some sort of accountability whether or not that form of accountability is actually helpful.
Privatize schools, cut taxes, get rid of the teachers union, hire good teachers and give they merit-based pay, fire bad teachers, trim the administration to a reasonable size, get rid of the federal Department of Education, and give local entities more control over their own schools. Do all that and you'll see a dramatic improvement over time. It wouldn't be immediate, but it would happen.- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bejamin Franklin would disagree.
The big difference now than 35 - 50 years ago is that in public schools under achievers were culled from the herd and expelled or passed along as long as they didn't make trouble and dumped when they turned 16.
Voucher system is simply more white flight /African segregationist *****, if your neighborhood schools are bad become involved and do something to correct the problem. Whining about vouchers isn't going to correct the system as the same teaching resources are going to abuse the vouchers; when your kids can't get into the prefered schools you'll still be faced with sucky choices. 20% of your expenditure will be drained off as non productive profit, coupled with the fact that 80% of the schools are going to fail because businessmen only seem to be able to get it right 20% of the time. - scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@edm1950 many studies prove your assertions wrong. (some even by institutions that started out trying to prove your assertions. - eg Harvard) Vouchers encourage innovation and more schools. They are MORE racially diverse than public schools with FEWER racial problems. Vouchers don't suck the cream of the crop out of public schools. (also vouchers aren't limited to private schools, you can use vouchers at other public schools) The state is NOT required to do the teaching of youngersters. The state is NOT required to do the teaching of youngsters with disabilities or disipline problems. The state is required to make sure those youngsters get educated, but it does NOT have to do it itself. It can hire someone else to do it.
States don't do that. The reason is simple they don't want to give up the money. They want to control the money. Children with special needs often get their schools more funding. (on a per student basis) Schools in an area could pool their resources and have 1 school do special needs or have a private firm handle their education. They don't because they don't want to give up the money.
I send 2 children to private school. I send them to the private school for less than the local public school gets for 1 child. (the regular per student cost not any special needs student's costs; so the comparison is apples to apples.) The problem isn't underfunding; it is lack of competition. The NEA and teacher's unions are deathly afraid of competition. It would mean the end of their strangle hold on primary education in America. (By their own admision the teacher's union is there for teachers NOT for the people who are taught.)
The majority of teachers aren't bad. But to be effective the whole enterprise has to be focused on the goal. The goal being education the children. (not job protection) - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@neiby
"Schools need to run like a business."
My only issue with that is that schools are already being run like a business. Parents see their tax dollars going into schools, and they (and their progeny) assume the same mindset that they always do with businesses: 'The customer is always right.'
The problem is, parents and students aren't always right. In my experience, they seldom are. And yet, you put them in a position of authority over the professional in the field.
Do you tell your doctor that his diagnosis is wrong because you (or your insurance) is footing the bill? Do you storm into your personal trainer's office and yell at them and curse them out because although you're paying them, you haven't lost any weight because you're too unmotivated or inept to follow their expert advice?
Education is not a business or a service, it is a privilege, and not treating it like one will suck all of the individual responsibility completely out of it. We'll be worse off than when we started.
- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bejamin Franklin would disagree.
- greg544, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This did not cost Jobs or Apple any business in the state of Texas because Texas is a open-shop state. Most teachers are not member of the union. There is a non-union organization that most Texas teacher belong to for classroom insurance and grievances. The AFL-CIO group is TSTA but it's membership is low. Most of the principals hired are teachers that want to advance. They usually don't get hired as principal if they were AFL-CIO members. In Texas, principals can get rid of a teacher pretty easily, but usually at the end of the year. THey cannot walk down the hall and fire people like Steve Jobs does.
Jobs knew exactly where he was and made his statements in a safe state. As a teacher I agree completely with his statements. At least a fourth of the teachers were I teach are too stupid to have the job. I am sure it is much worse in the states were all teachers are compelled to join the union.
Unions are the main reason the Ipod is not manufactured in the US.- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're not an English teacher, I hope.
For extra credit, find out what "where" and "were" mean.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're not an English teacher, I hope.
- Lorigga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Education like a business. Thats the metaphor people keep using which hurts education. I'd like to know, has Jobs ever been forced to be over worked and underpaid? To care about kids but be told you need to keep a distance, that these kids already have a set path in life? No one with a voice of authority mentions these issues.
He claims admins should have full authority to fire teachers at a whim, but doesn't realize they have the power to make a teachers life a living hell and do so! Plus there's a lot of abuse of power and mismanagement of funds, would Jobs claim money management issues fall on teachers? Or the incompetence of admins?
And what about parents expecting teachers to raise their kids, thus making a teachers job that much harder?
I get offended that people would compare our children to some base commodity in a business (which is implied by saying a school is like a business). I'm also quite saddened that Jobs would have such a narrow view point. He should know that no complex problem has such a simple solution. We need people to look at all factors and seek a middle ground. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Teachers are paid well...the "teachers are working for peanuts" is liberal large government pro-union socialist propaganda.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average public school teacher in the United States earned $34.06 per hour in 2005.
The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm
Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week during weeks that they are working. By comparison, white-collar workers (excluding sales) work 39.4 hours, and professional specialty and technical workers work 39.0 hours per week. Private school teachers work 38.3 hours per week.
The Detroit metropolitan area has the highest average public school teacher pay among metropolitan areas for which data are available, at $47.28 per hour, followed by the San Francisco metropolitan area at $46.70 per hour, and the New York metropolitan area at $45.79 per hour.
Now...are they REALLY as underpaid as many claim? Or given how much teachers are paid compared to most white collar workers, are we seeing the sort of results that should be expected??? Or are we seeing the results of a out of control government spending program full of entitlement mentality lifer union workers?
It's time to end the government MONOPOLY on public education and support alternative solutions like school vouchers.... Public School is the Microsoft Windows of education.- valvin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I question teacher's unions myself, but these wages per hour arguments are flawed.
First of all, they assume 36.5 hours of work per week, meaning about 7 hours a day. Say, 8 a.m.-3 p.m. Do you honestly believe teachers only work during those hours? After school is out, they must spend hours grading, formulating grade plans, and preparing for the next day. For a good teacher, I would estimate that adds at least 3-4 hours to their day. So, now we're up to 11 hours of work per day, or 55 hours per week during weeks they are working. Now, what about the number of weeks worked? Again, the $34 an hour number comes from assuming teachers only work about 36 weeks a year. That's just enough to account for the school year. The summer is not the vacation time many people believe it is. Many teacher must attend training programs and other requirements in order to maintain certification. I haven't even begun to account for the time some teachers put into extracurricular activities.
So, yes, perhaps bad teachers are getting paid $34 an hour. But the best certainly are not. - 1999ncsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To add to Valvin...
From my experience, it is the bad teachers that benefit. If you are a good teacher, you get asked and/or told to take on other responsibilities. These range from coaching/committees/tutoring/webpage/clubs and can take a lot of time. Admins ask the good teachers because they are the ones that will put forth the time and effort. The bad teachers are often left with no additional responsibilities, but get the same pay.
The good teachers also spend more time planning. An effective lesson != read chapter 3 and do a worksheet.
The fact that teachers are underpaid or overpaid doesn't really matter. The current starting salary is not enough to attract the best and the brightest kids from college. If you want the best, you have to pay for it. If this works, you would create competition from teaching jobs. Next get rid of tenure. The fact that someone else wants my job would motivate me to do the best I can and show I am an asset to the school and it would be a mistake to fire me. - scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@valvin47,
Do you think people in the private sector only work 40 hours a week? As an exempt employee I can assure you an easy week is 40 hours a week. So the additional time you claim to be doing something and that should be in the denominator is offset by the fact that most exempt employees are doing those things alos on their off hours. So yes, teachers are not underpaid. - rqwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Teacher's aren't underpaid and yet nearly everyone who makes that statement earns significantly more than teachers earn. The problem is if I'd come out of school with my degree and gone into the private sector I could probably be making 10 to 20 thousand more than I make now. The per hour argument isn't fair because now you're discussing teaching as if it is a factory occupation. It's no wonder that many teachers feel disrespected and less professional because our profession is rarely seen as a PROFESSION.
Let's look at how much the Steve Jobs makes hourly and then let's ask what the ***** he does that is in anyway contributing to society besides being a pretentious asshat that produces techno porn for us to jerk off to. - valvin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@scubajim
It's certainly true that workers in other fields work more than 40 hours a week. As a graduate student, I've worked 80-90 hours a week at times which would put my pay per hour below minimum wage. I was simply attempting to point out the falacy of the wage per hour argument.
In a twist of irony, it's actually possible that teacher's unions are keeping down their wages. As has already been stated, the existence of tenure is one example. But we can also envision this scenario: what if parents were given vouchers so that they could choose which school, public or private, to send their students. Schools would then have an incentive to hire the best teachers, because that's where most parents would want their children to go. The competition to attract the best teachers would naturally lead to a salary increase at the best schools. If tenure is removed from the picture, that would make it both easier to remove teachers that are bad and act as a motivation for teachers to maintain teaching at a level that got them the job in the first place.
- valvin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I question teacher's unions myself, but these wages per hour arguments are flawed.
- terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Believe it or not, I've met more bad principals than bad teachers. Seriously.
I'd like to see unions work with the school's administration *and* the school board in weeding out bad teachers (and the definition of bad should definitely include people with psychological issues... there are lots of CAPABLE teachers who should not be around kids). It's in a union's best interests to eject people who are going to threaten its survival.
In the end, firing every "bad" teacher probably won't make much of a difference. A good first step would be to undo every part of No Child Left Behind (teach something that won't be on the test! It's okay, their brains won't explode if they get too full). Eliminating homework would be great, too. And acknowledge that ALL marking is subjective (really, even math - no two math teachers will mark the same test in the same way). The difference between an A+ and an A depends entirely on the teacher's opinion of a student, and has nothing to do with the student's performance.
And, if you made college cheaper, then more kids would be driven to get there. Or, at least their parents would be WAY more encouraging. It's hard to get excited about a $60,000 debt. - waterboy1628, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe it's the Universities' fault for churning out all these "bad teachers."
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Possibly. As a group, guess who tends to score lowest on SAT and ACT exams? People who go on to major in education. I'm not saying all teachers are dumb. That is absolutely not the case. I'm just saying that, on average, they score lower on entrance exams that those who chose other majors.
- SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Billionaire CEOs against unions? Say it aint so.
- winnch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>Billionaire CEOs against unions? Say it aint so.
Steve Jobs isn't saying he's against unions. He's simply stating there needs to be accountability. We always say, "Teachers need to get paid more!" Well, no.. GOOD teachers need to get paid more. Bad teachers need to be replaced (and there are plenty). Like a cop who steals or a firefighter who beats his wife, there is a teacher who isn't very good at his or her job.
I'm a supporter of labor unions and a proud Democrat. I'm also for accountability. Unionize teachers. Pay great teachers more. Replace bad teachers. To do that, you need some flexibility in unions rules. Many times it's difficult to fire a teacher.
- winnch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>Billionaire CEOs against unions? Say it aint so.
- growler1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The solution, therefore, is a combination of the No Child Left Behind act with proper funding."
I respectfully disagree. The source of a lot of problems in the educational system is, in fact, the business-model approach to education that the NCLB act stands for.
As an educator myself (post-secondary), I have heard countless teachers describe their disgust and aversion for this backwards system. The problem, like always, is that the people in charge of making decision are so far removed from the front lines of education, that all their best efforts are misguided, at best, and at worst, damaging.
Teachers have their hands tied, are overworked, and put in awful situations on a daily basis. The students who make it to my college composition classroom are so disillusioned with education, learning, and self-motivation that in most cases it's all I can do to get a solid bit of independent thought out of them.
We need ground-up, cutting edge reform. I'm all for listening to Jobs, Dell, Gates, or whomever, so long as they do their homework, and don't try to turn America's schools into a company--and they listen to somebody who's whip smart and has spent time in the trenches.- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1America's public and private universities all have to compete for students, and the upshot is that our colleges and postgraduate schools are second to none. That's the market at work, QED.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1America's public and private universities all have to compete for students, and the upshot is that our colleges and postgraduate schools are second to none. That's the market at work, QED.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2unions are the result of employers abuses. education is one of the most important things that happens. teachers are drastically undervalued. teachers have to unionize to keep food on their own table. the solution is simple.
- mozartsgokart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In buffalo, NY we hired a superintendent that was fired from his last job for reasons not disclosed. Yea, government!
- xcbxcb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a masters degree in applied linguistics, and I'm an adjunct ESL professor. I teach 3 classes - the state limit for part timers - and clear about $10k a year.
I spent two weeks in a primary/public school training course and have never, ever, ever, ever, ever in my life experienced such a group of incompetent, toe-the-line, goosestepping robot ***** as I did for those two weeks.
I wound up getting kicked out of the program for arguing with the "instructor" that language was both acquired AND learned.
Moral of the story: I'd rather be poor than be around those morons. The whole thing was horrifying. Another reason to not have a kid.- trachys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You were kicked out of a training program, for arguing that language is both learned and acquired by pre-adolescents? This I have trouble believing. Respectfully, of course.
- xcbxcb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I found it abhorrent that they were subjecting 120+ new teachers to this insanity, and my inability to "just drop it" got me removed. Yes.
When they started talking about putting children into "word jail" for using words like "said" and "went" (not expressive enough), just after talking about Krashen and affective filters, I effectively lost it. - trachys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF!? Please tell me this wasn't a program for teachers working with the children of immigrants! I'm not sure I would have been able to contain myself either, if the workshop was as you describe it. Disturbing.
- xcbxcb, <