Libtards are retarded and live in their own fantasy world

whatshouldicareabout

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/what-if-abc-news/what-if-teachers-were-paid-like-athletes-135234980.html

(yes, Yahoo's my source, wanna fight about it?)

Watch that video. If you rage, you're normal. If you think it's a good idea to pay teachers $5,000,000/year as a means to improve test scores (they never claimed it'd make the kids smarter), there'll be some gasoline, matches and an anchor on the Aurora Bridge for you sometime this week. Hell, at current income levels, you could take that $5,000,000 and fund 100 normal teachers for your average 30 student classroom. Holy shit, imagine that, 3 teachers per student in America. Think the kids would be smarter then?

Also, for a video about American education, they sure are a bunch of dumb fucks. How do they think professional athletes are paid? How are teachers paid? And FFS, the map of the US at 1:05 includes Vancouver Island.

EsophagealFeces

I'm all for teachers getting paid better, but $5mil a year is fucking retarded. TeacheCenter? Give me a fucking break. That gaybob needs to go smoke a cigar in a gas filled hot tub. Also, someone needs to punch that bells palsy bitch right in her half paralyzed(Hi PL_SS!) mouth.

greenblood

My wife is a teacher, and I wouldn't have a problem if she got a raise, but then I remember she only works 9 months out of the year. Her true wage is about 25% higher than what her stub says. Still underpaid, but not by as much as a lot of people believe.

MikeDamone

greenblood said:

My wife is a teacher, and I wouldn't have a problem if she got a raise, but then I remember she only works 9 months out of the year. Her true wage is about 25% higher than what her stub says. Still underpaid, but not by as much as a lot of people believe.

She's not underpaid..

HTH

TierbsHsotBoobs

greenblood said:

My wife is a teacher, and I wouldn't have a problem if she got a raise, but then I remember she only works 9 months out of the year. Her true wage is about 25% higher than what her stub says. Still underpaid, but not by as much as a lot of people believe.

She makes up for being underpaid by sleeping with her students.

Hope this helps.

CheersWestDawg

Maybe teachers should get paid what the free market says they ought to be paid.

You know, rather than by some bullshit government chart.

TierbsHsotBoobs

CheersWestDawg said:

Maybe teachers should get paid what the free market says they ought to be paid.

You know, rather than by some bullshit government chart.

When it's a required government function, you can't use the free market alone to determine their salaries.

The fact that schools can pay teachers what they do does indicate that there are plenty of teachers available and no need to pay them more though.

CheersWestDawg

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

CheersWestDawg said:

Maybe teachers should get paid what the free market says they ought to be paid.

You know, rather than by some bullshit government chart.

When it's a required government function, you can't use the free market alone to determine their salaries.

The fact that schools can pay teachers what they do does indicate that there are plenty of teachers available and no need to pay them more though.

Totally agree. I just think government's role should be greatly reduced and a voucher system should be started. I have no idea how that would affect teacher salaries. I do know it would be better for the students.

Find a way to privatize the entire education system (yeah I know it'll never happen), and then each teacher would be paid what the market says. Good teachers would get better salaries than the shitty ones.

TierbsHsotBoobs

CheersWestDawg said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

CheersWestDawg said:

Maybe teachers should get paid what the free market says they ought to be paid.

You know, rather than by some bullshit government chart.

When it's a required government function, you can't use the free market alone to determine their salaries.

The fact that schools can pay teachers what they do does indicate that there are plenty of teachers available and no need to pay them more though.

Totally agree. I just think government's role should be greatly reduced and a voucher system should be started. I have no idea how that would affect teacher salaries. I do know it would be better for the students.

Find a way to privatize the entire education system (yeah I know it'll never happen), and then each teacher would be paid what the market says. Good teachers would get better salaries than the shitty ones.

I'm fine with vouchers, but you can't privatize the whole system.

haie

What a bunch of bullshit. Like parents are gonna want their kids to get their education by sitting in front of a computer for that long.

Teachers make no money because they have no skills (those that can't do, teach). It's not a big deal that they work a 2nd job (They're so smart right? That should be no problem for these geniuses) in the summer.

This video is full of butthurt over athletes making what the market dictates.

HFNY

Teachers Unions only exist to serve those who are in said union at the expense of everyone else (parents, kids, taxpayers, etc etc).

The Pre-K proposals in Seattle are nice but I asked (after I received an email from Ed Murray) the campaign manager (of "Blue Wave Media rather than Purple or Red Wave) if these Pre-K schools would be controlled by the unions or if they were more like charter schools. This is what he said:


"The Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) is not at all like the charter school system that was set up under Initiative 1240. Rather, it strengthens public involvement in preschool instruction for three and four year-old kids in Seattle compared to the current privatized system.

To understand why, the most important point to understand is that there currently is no public preschool system in Seattle, so the new program would not be competing with or potentially drawing resources away from an existing system of public preschool instruction. Under the current private system of childcare, quality varies widely and access to a high quality preschool environment is largely limited to children in better off families who can afford to pay for it.

That is a clear problem, and the Seattle Preschool Program is geared to improving the existing system by creating more opportunities for high quality preschool. It’s about making quality preschool affordable and accessible to those who are interested (it's voluntary) by creating a set of public standards for what quality preschool should be, and then offering free or subsidized tuition on a sliding scale based on ability to pay to families who participate in preschool programs that meet those standards. The ultimate goal is to ensure every child regardless of family income has the opportunity to benefit from a quality preschool experience, so they enter the K-12 system – most participating kids will leave the City pre-K program to attend Seattle public schools – with the best possible opportunity to succeed. And it does this without diverting any money away from an existing public system (since no such system exists).

As for your question about union run schools, our plan currently has the sole endorsement of the King County Labor Council and if passed, the City will continue to work with unions on it's implementation. "

I thanked him for his response and asked another question but didn't get a response (which I anticipated):

"Will families have a choice of where to send their young children or will they be forced to send their kids to a specific one, regardless of its quality? Also, what is the per child cost of this initiative?"

No matter his response, we must bust the teacher's unions. They are set-up to extract as much tax revenues from the rest of us as possible and then use some of our money to donate to Democratic politicians to keep the gravy train going. It's unethical and immoral but libtards don't care.