What is Digg?96 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39Had the money gone towards teaching English, CNN would have written "...to increase the _number_ of math and science teachers."
But as it stands, the money is going into new technology to make our science and math teachers larger. As if Americans need any help.
(all kidding aside, it's about time we focused on education). - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26The real problem in this country is that many students don't care and dont try, and many parents think of school as nothing but cheap day-care. The portion of our population who actually care about their education do just fine.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19When I was in high school, I was shocked by the low math and science requirements. They required more english credits than math and science combined. These are basic skills you need to think.
- TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Yuck, more national BS in state education.
More federal regulation is hurting our schools. - Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Has anyone read the freaking article? They're talking about scholarships for math and science majors who agree to teach, funding for current teachers who go for additional education, and grants for young researchers in science and engineering. The whole point is that they're trying to get better qualified folks into the classroom and out into academics - and they've (probably deliberately, and likely only partially) decided to do it in a way that doesn't get funneled through local school systems.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Sorry, I have to stand up for teachers here... because frankly... you're a moron.
Most teachers I know have contracts that start them out at the poverty line. And while SOME have nine month contracts, their pay checks are reduced each time so that they have a continuous flow of income. THEY DONT GET PAID FOR VACATION. Also, when do you think they grade papers, design course work, tutor students? Let me give you a hint... it's outside of school time AND THEY DONT GET PAID FOR IT.
The administrators (up to principle) generally have 12 month contracts and take on other duties like grounds maintenece, sporting events ticket/concession sales, etc.
Now, the super-intendants in my state are some of the highest paid in the nation, with the lowest average teacher pay.
If you honestly believe NCLB is the problem, you lack some critical thinking skills because you didn't have any good teachers in school. - jmbothfsh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11MathAndScienceTeachers++;
- UmmoSirius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13And, more appropriately to the topic at hand, ***** the creationists.
- JustAn0th3rFace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Hey Eric Dano,
The bill passed 389-22
Last time i checked there wasn't 389 democrats and 22 republicans in the House
In fact, there is 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans
Which means a good majority of Republicans voted for this bill.
Read that article and know your informations before you post ignorant comments such as your previous statement. - Shaman760, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9That's great. Now if they could remove the political ***** from the teaching system, maybe our teachers would stand a chance. And if they paid them what they are worth too.
- CheezIt9109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Personally I'd say better quality teachers are needed a lot more than the number of teachers.
Even then, with the way things are heading in terms of qualifying education using these ***** standardized tests... - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6South Dakota v. Dole has to do with the drinking age and interstate highway funds. You should read the Commerce Clause and then take a look at United States v. Lopez where the Court states that education is not a commercial activity and therefore does not fall under the Commerce Clause. Education is an area for the states. See 10th Amendment. Here I'll post it for you: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Regulation of education by the feds violates federalism.
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh, no question we need to improve the quality of education. I just hate this veil of "staying competitive", especially when they go off above the globalization and international markets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, they are now cutting 4th and 5th grade reading assistants in my state in order to hire more math and science teachers.
As important as math and science are, they don't mean ***** if you can't read and write.
This law is ***** until school districts can afford to hire math+science AND reading+writing teachers. - wpi97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@rnwen2750
Serious math teaching should start in the 6th grade, with algebra AND geometry, and proceed gradually through the school years up through calculus. It should not be optional. The sciences should also be called concurrently, to make sure that the concepts are covered in the right order. Vectors should be covered in math before they are introduced in physics. Biology at the molecular level should not be taught before chemistry. Curriculum at the secondary school level should be integrated, not modular. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7As I study for my con law final, I wonder where Congress feels they got the power to do this...
- ccunni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5While the quality of the teachers should be addressed, the math/science curriculum also needs adjustment.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How do you mandate more jobs, at least without lowering the quality of the people holding the jobs? Just hiring more people to teach math and science doesn't mean that the quality of the math and science education will increase. And it's the quality of the educational system that has been the problem for years.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Absolute *****. Once again, the congress votes to throw more of our money away, with no provision for accountability, and certainly no attempt to break the NEA cartel. The USA already outspends Europe per pupil, and we don't get what we pay for.
-jcr - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why is the focus to increase our competitiveness? That means nothing, it could be done just as easily by making other countries worse. It also means nothing because if everyone is good, being last means nothing, and if everything is bad, being first means nothing.
- wpi97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Somehow I doubt that not having enough teachers is the problem. Maybe having better teachers would help? Maybe teachers should be better payed, so that smarter people go into teaching? Also a comprehensive math and science curriculum would help. And it should start early. A year of algebra and a year of geometry in high school does not constitute good education.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let me speak from experience...
Laws mandating spending on education don't go where it's supposed to.
Most to the time, the money goes to the administrators while students have to bring toilet paper and paper towels as part of their school supplies.
The state I'm in spends more than $.50 of every tax dollar on education and we are one of the last in the nation. We also have the highest paid administrators and lowest paid teachers in the nation.... GO FIGURE! - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, the public universities in the USA are pretty good too, because they have to be to compete with the private ones.
-jcr - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The administrators (up to principle) generally have 12 month contracts and take on other duties like grounds maintenece, sporting events ticket/concession sales, etc."
My computer programming teacher in high school ( graduated 6 years ago) showed us how to do "Hello World" in C++ then left us to do the rest by helping one another and looking in the book. He spent our classtime either not in the room or on the Internet looking at the weather radar.
For this, being a special subject, he got $75k. He also served as athletic director of the school, the duties for which I'd assume he did during periods of time which he was not present during my class, and his pay (for 8 months of work, mind you) rocketed up past $100,000.
Underpaid my ass. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"What some of you seem to fail to realize is that this will help increase the quality of teachers as well as the number. "
Guess again. The NEA will see to it that merit will never be a factor in teacher compensation.
-jcr - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We need vouchers....
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I call BS. First off, education is run by the states and not by the feds - anytime the federal government does something to "improve" education, all they're really doing is improving insider pocket books. Second off, it's hard to believe, but there is a direct INVERSE correlation between education/graduation and funding. Anytime the schools have a problem, the first and only answer is 'we need more money". Well, bull. The public schools where I live receive about 12000 per student per year, that's more than most high quality private schools. What they need is a swift kick in the ass and what we need is to give control over that 12000 back to the parents. It reminds me of that guy in New York city who got the "teacher of the year" award twice. When asked how to fix the public education system, he said that it was beyond repair and that the only fix was to completely shut it down permanently.
- wpi97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like teaching, and I think I am pretty good at it. But why would I be a high school teacher if I can make a lot more money writing code?
- SopMan99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tenure and unions only ENCOURAGE mediocrity... This is why the Japanese have surpassed the American auto companies in quality (and sales I believe).
If you KNOW that you're not going to lose your job unless you do something outright illegal and are NOT getting paid very well, what is the motivation to do anything besides the bare minimum to get by?
Think "Office-Space" here - jdog2050, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Although this is a step in the right direction, it's still really just not enough. America doesn't manufacture things anymore, and China and India are proving to be just as capable in coming up with new technology. So what does America need? Leadership...leadership comes from ancillary activities...afterschool activities, music, civics courses. Where's the funding for that?
I see America trying to make its school programs like Asia, but I'm in Asia, and the schooling here is rather disappointing; it focuses on repetition and parroting--THAT's why their test scores are so high, because all the teach is learning for the test. We shouldn't copy that. - EverySam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What we need is to find the last hundred or two hundred people in this nation with actual critical thinking skills, and make them all-powerful dictators of the school system.
The people in charge now were educated by the system long after it went to hell. It's a downward spiral of idiocy. Anyone who makes it out of the US public (hell, private even) school system and is actually able to think, "I wonder if this is true or false. I hope it's true. Oh, the data say it's false in 86% of cases. Therefore it would be foolish to declare it true, despite my wishes, although perhaps an oversimplification to declare it false. I'm glad I learned something new!" is a demigod, far surpassing the chimps that run every business and government sector in this nation.
As it stands, the current US conception of critical thinking is, "This must be true because I want it to be. I will not look at the data, because they are complicated, and surely support my position regardless. Oh, some scumbag is showing me the data. Ah, the data consist of lies; the scumbag is a homosexual liar and a threat to society. Therefore it is true, in accordance with my wishes. I'm glad I learned something new!" - Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@killinger - that's true - the current system does allow those who strive to be able to succeed pretty much no matter where you are. We still have to TRY to help those who are young and impressionable and would otherwise just grow to have their family's opinion of education. One of the best ways to do that is to get more and better teachers in front of them - at all age groups.
- jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It doesn't matter....the public school system itself is what is wrong with education. The only educational success stories in this country are the large private universities that are world known...everything else has been an expensive monumental failure.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2" all you need to do is support withrawing from Iraq and spending that $billions/year on kids."
And that's why we had that massive improvement in student performance after the end of the Vietnam war, right?
Oh, wait.
-jcr - dime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How exactly do we pay for that again? Even with average teacher salaries, I'm paying an arm in property taxes (with god knows how much of my state and federal income taxes going to subsidize the local schools). Throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.
Tenure, on the other hand... - JustAn0th3rFace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Curriculum changes from state to state. House of Reps can't really do anything about that.
- krached, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good luck on that final, you are gonna need it. Comes from the power to spend, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." See South Dakota v Dole.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How exactly do we pay for that again? Even with average teacher salaries, I'm paying an arm in property taxes (with god knows how much of my state and federal income taxes going to subsidize the local schools). Throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.
Tenure, on the other hand..."
If you don't like tenure, then don't complain when you refuse to pay more for their salaries or you refuse to stop throwing money at Iraq.Without tenure, their market-based salary would double. I look at it like this - we can either pay our taxes to (A) military or (B) kids. Out of those two, one of them is an investment in our future and GDP. Both parties want to spend like there's no tomorrow. The dems spend domestically and on things like education. This legislation never saw the light of day previously and they are trying to scale back defense spending in Iraq. Throwing money at Iraq is not an investment in the USA. - mutagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Finally something like this is happening. While i see some of you fail to see the benefits to this (and blaming Democrats when only a few congressmen voted against). I'm still in high school, so my memory is still fresh, but when it comes to math and science, teaching from the book doesn't always cut it. There are skills such as logic and reasoning that need to be properly developed. I've have good teachers and bad in these areas. I could always tell by the amount of people that asked for help during study hall.
What some of you seem to fail to realize is that this will help increase the quality of teachers as well as the number. It will also probably increase the pay that they get. If you look at history, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, we did something similar to this. National Education Defense Act or something like that (best educational reform bill ever passed). It successfully raised the amount of qualified teachers in math and science.
The thing is, if you offer people a scholarship that large, they will come. The part that will help teachers with salaries is that people will probably not stay with teaching that long at the current pay rate (unless they have a long time requirement which wasn't mentioned). While some people seem to believe that schools are devoid of intelligent administration, no one is that stupid. They'll realize that they'll need to raise pay to keep the teachers that they're getting. With higher pay, more people will keep on flowing into teaching. The more people you have, you'll know this if you've taken a stats class, the more gifted teachers you'll get. Sure you'll get more lousy ones, but with more teachers, schools probably won't have to hang onto them due to low faculty levels.
The last thing that needs done is for the curriculum to be improved. While some believe that states should handle that, you only need to look at the current state of the educational system to see that it wouldn't be a bad idea to give the federal government a chance. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Alternative headline: CONGRESS PASSES KNEE-JERK LEGISLATION TO THROW MONEY AT [insert issue] PROBLEM
The problem with the education system isn't the pay and it isn't the teachers; it's the stupid NCLB, the stupid curricula and stupid limitations put on teachers by legislators. Teachers get paid plenty, and if you don't believe me go check out your local school's pay scale (for 9 months, mind you). The problem is that nobody will step up and seriously look at how education takes place. They are too busy working on hare-brained schemes (NCLB, the old New Math, etc.), trying to ban evolution, or throwing money at technology that does nothing to improve education (computers, projectors, surveillance cameras...). The way to learn is 1) have a teacher that loves and knows their subject (in that order), 2) have good textbooks that aim high instead of targeting the retard in the back of the class, 3) learn by doing (exercises, examples, walkthroughs, homework, labs). It isn't hard, and it's cheap and dare I say fun if done right. But no...no child left behind, remember? We have to slow down the bus so the retards can keep up. - greg9683, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2^^You would have people who are in it for the money. That's a given, but if teaching was a more competitive field, you'd get more enthusiastic people. When you have families you also have to consider costs and expenses. And teachers generally aren't on the higher end of things. I've been a tutor for years now I have considered teaching, but the pay is definitely not something to brag about. So I have went down another path. If teachers were paid more, my career choice might have been different. People are more willing to put in the time if they are being rewarded for this skill set.
- SopMan99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As a teacher, this is how I see it...
Teachers are the among the lowest paid "professional' workers in the market place. This is nothing new. There are some truely amazing and talented teachers out there and then there are the rest. In ANY profession, if there is little to no competition to get into said profession, logic dictates that the quality of the workers will be substantially lower. For example, if anyone could be a doctor, and the salary for doctors was as low as it is for teachers, just imagine how poor the medical profession would be.
So the solution is NOT to place an arbitrary law in place so that the politicians can say "hey look at me, I support education". The solution is to do what is done in EVERY other profession within this market system... that is to compensate the teachers for what they are actually worth. This way you will get rid of the teachers who are teaching because they couldn't do anything else with their lives. We've all had those unmotivated, lazy teachers.
If the compensation package was competitive with other professions, there would be a competitive drive just to get IN to a college of education and subsequently to get a job at a school. This alone will drive out the worthless teachers.
Again, more laws are not the answer until the politicians are willing to back up those laws with enforcement AND the compensation packages for the people with the most direct interaction with students..... teachers - jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@NSResponder
They are not really public as you have to pay to go there and they can turn you down. They private with some public funding, but you're right. We do have good schools that get funding by the state but the best ones such as UVA are trying to become more and more private by weening themselves off public funding. It is getting harder and harder for schools that are not allowed to increase tuition and yet don't get the money they need from the state to compete with the large private institutions. - phaed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most major scientific and mathematical progress gets done here for the simple fact that the knowledgeable have access to the types of technology that help them achieve cutting edge advances. Other countries, even though they may have more scientifically educated populance, simply have not had access to such technology. Now the world is changing, these counties now have similar technology and we are going to begin to fall behind simply because of the fact that we are a country that has an education benchmark lacking behind most of the civilized world. We need to wake up from our self image of greatness. We are lagging behind and that's where we'll stay if we don't make changes now.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The answer is to get the government out of education. If teachers were competing in a free marketplace, then they'd be valued at what they're worth and good teachers would be lured by good pay to good schools, or at least schools that valued their talents. The government and the unions are screwing you over.
- netant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@tech42er
Sorry, I'm not buying. Public education, as horrific as it is today, is an gov't instrument for standardizing an education level for ALL its citizens. (The problem, among its myriad of problems, is the bar is set too low.) If you cannot impose a system where there is a level playing field of opportunity, you will only institutionalize economic inequity based on the previous generation's wealth.
Going private education only means it will be cheaper for rich people to provide a superior competitive advantage to its offspring. In a nation where the majority of "rich" people happen to also belong to a distinct ethnic group, its only going to exacerbate ethnic social unrest. Yes, its possible that educational standards would improve in poor neighborhoods, but the longterm result would be that it wouldn't be able to take in all kids, therefore it becomes another status/connections game, and the "talent" in the better quality poor schools would end up getting poached by the rich districts. Granted, the current system has a similar situation, but the differences would be much more pronounced with market forces.
Look, if education should be privatized, why not privatize law enforcement? Why not re-privatize the fire department? Is Iraq and America better off with a competing, private military services corporation?
There are unique functions with unique requirements that are better off for society if they are under the control of "inefficient" elected gov't.
Ideally, what I would like to see is a complete state with urban areas, and low achievement ranking adopt privatized education (say Illinois, Louisiana, or Arkansas). Then let it run loose for twenty years, and then evaluate the results. If they're bad, only a subsection of the American public will experience the harm.
And from where is everyone yanking out this BS argument that eliminating tenure will double teacher salaries??? Sure, there will be an increase, but what study concluded it will be 100% increase? And WHAT would be wrong with increasing teacher salaries? Isn't that what market forces is about? Isn't that what teachers bitch about (lousy pay)?
Tenure exists in academic environment to PROTECT newly discovered/realized knowlege. New ideas tend to be unpopular ideas, and people who promote those ideas are subject to attack by entrenched establishment and its interests. Tenure is a preposterous concept when applied to primary school educators. They do not produce research. They are not even permitted to teach sufficiently unpopular thought, even if factually supported. What they are permitted to teach is subject to their local school board and state gov't. Tenure obviously prevents a school district from reacting to local conditions, and its economically inefficient to guarantee a job to someone whos services aren't needed or aren't performing to a level justifying their employment. And when an administrator can demonstrate a differential in performance with a teacher, why shouldn't that teacher be rewarded with an increased salary or bonus?
There are a lot of reasons why public education is substantially underperforming compared to forty years ago. (I haven't seen illegal immigrant children or abandoned standards or dollars being sucked away from teachers towards "administrators" being mentioned...) Public school teachers were unionized back in the fifties, and their performance standards are the ideal we're comparing to today. Stop pushing political agendas and just look at what can be done today. - dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Having graduated from a state teachers college in science, I would say that the college curriculum for prospective teachers needs to be improved.
- SopMan99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dime
Totally agree that we need to cut the fat... Why have multi-million dollar administrative facilities yet there are schools that are over-crowded and have sub-standard facilities. And why do we NEED to spend as much money as we do on athletic programs when the data hasn't shown that there is any educational value in it? Simply having baseball, softball, football, soccer, lacrosse fields is an arrogant waste of money. Before you flame me, read this:
There are are only about 20-25 people on a softball/baseball team right? So we're going to put other kids in portable classrooms when there is plenty of good land being wasted on a very small number of kids.
Pasco county schools here in Florida doesn't even have auditorium facilities in high schools. They made a CONSCIOUS choice to make sure that every high school has a full complement of athletic facilities (very nice athletic facilities). This means that there is no main space for kids to gather... no place to have drama/performing arts events. These arts event HAVE been proven time and time againg to be beneficial to the educational health of the student population. In every country that places a high level of emphasis on music/arts, the kids do better in every subject. That is not up to debate...it's been proven. Few kids benefit from athletics... We do it because of tradition and community support (not necessarily financial support).
So yes, cut the fat... Look at the data and see what we should be spending our money on. There's no reason to raise taxes. There's plenty of money there. Businesses would gladly invest more in education if they KNEW that they would be getting better workers out of it. - FlapJaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Go Greg House
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Totally agree. But if we were to get rid of tenure, teachers would demand higher salaries(they take lower salaries for the chance of getting tenure and an easy job) so I don't think taxpayers are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Conservatives will whine about the unions but refuse to spend more on teacher's salaries. I know of a teacher that got $18k/year teaching in El Paso. That is ridiculous. I think we need to get rid of tenure and pay teachers based on their abilities. Teaching should be an honored and well paid position.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is