Teaching Certification
WahTaWah41
>The particulars I do not know, but the
>point was that I can not teach high school economics legally in texas
>despite a Ph.D. in the subject whereas someone with a teaching
>certificate and 3 hours (one course) of economics can.
I think we're crossing the line somewhat to bashing teachers' education.
I wouldn't trust many PhDs to be able to manage nor motivate a classroom of
adolescents with zero enthusiasm for the subject matter and the usual
sprinkling these days of ADD/ADHD students as well as the classic classroom
disrupter yelling vulgar epithets. A school administrator might help the poor
PhD with some of the problems, but they expect teachers to deal with most cases
themselves, drawing from training in child psychology as well as learning
styles.
A PhD in economics requires nonesuch training.
I'm not saying there aren't teachers who get through teachers' ed. programs
woefully unprepared in the subject material. I am saying there are PhDs
woefully unable to get along with people, much less adolescents not
infrequently hell-bent on taking over the classroom.
Micky DuPree
wahta...@aol.com (WahTaWah41) writes:
: Econman wrote:
:: The particulars I do not know, but the point was that I can not teach
:: high school economics legally in texas despite a Ph.D. in the subject
:: whereas someone with a teaching certificate and 3 hours (one course)
:: of economics can.
:
: I think we're crossing the line somewhat to bashing teachers'
: education.
Thank you, and not too far from bashing public-school teachers, for that
matter. For crying out loud, even if you don't agree with them about
avenues of reform, they're in the trenches, and I haven't seen any
compelling evidence that it's their fault that public schools might be
described as trenches in the first place.
-Micky
David Marc Nieporent
>: Econman wrote:
Well, it's their union. Who exactly is blocking the avenues of reform?
Their sole contribution to the policy debate is "Raise our salaries" and
"Make it harder to fire us." (Positive contribution, I mean; there are
bunches o' proposals that they don't like.)
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David Marc Nieporent
>>The particulars I do not know, but the
>>point was that I can not teach high school economics legally in texas
>>despite a Ph.D. in the subject whereas someone with a teaching
>>certificate and 3 hours (one course) of economics can.
>I think we're crossing the line somewhat to bashing teachers' education.
Bingo.
>I wouldn't trust many PhDs to be able to manage nor motivate a classroom of
>adolescents with zero enthusiasm for the subject matter and the usual
>sprinkling these days of ADD/ADHD students as well as the classic classroom
>disrupter yelling vulgar epithets. A school administrator might help the poor
>PhD with some of the problems, but they expect teachers to deal with most cases
>themselves, drawing from training in child psychology as well as learning
>styles.
>A PhD in economics requires nonesuch training.
>I'm not saying there aren't teachers who get through teachers' ed. programs
>woefully unprepared in the subject material. I am saying there are PhDs
>woefully unable to get along with people, much less adolescents not
>infrequently hell-bent on taking over the classroom.
And I'm saying that this is true of teachers also. The idea that teachers'
ed programs actually qualify one to handle a classroom is what I'm
challenging. Though certainly over time, teachers develop this skill.
(Not the skill of teaching -- just the skill of handling a classroom.) My
wife was formerly a public school teacher, so I'm not speaking of this just
as a disgruntled former student. Do teachers get taught about "learning
styles?" Sure -- enough so that they can parrot back the answers on final
exams in teachers' ed programs. That's hardly the same as actually being
trained or competent to handle a classroom.
Of course, part of the problem is certainly the hodgepodge of laws and
regulations that have been developed over the years. Behavior problems are
reclassified as psychological problems/learning disabilities, in part
because the psychology industry has invented new problems so they can get
more money for treating them, in part because schools can get extra funding
if they have "special needs" students, in part because schools get to
ignore the test scores of special ed kids in reporting school performance,
and in part because parents demand that their kids get special treatment
instead of punishment for being disruptive. Then, of course, it's harder
to discipline the kids, because that's discrimination against the disabled.
You couldn't set it up better if you were trying to sabotage schools.
Between the IDEA and the ADA, you basically eliminate the authority of
teachers and schools to deal with disruptive kids appropriately.
Chris Crandall
: A PhD in economics requires nonesuch training.
Although this is a hilarious line, I think that you mean it
requires none such training.
WahTaWah41
>Who exactly is blocking the avenues of reform?
>Their sole contribution to the policy debate is "Raise our salaries" and
>"Make it harder to fire us." (Positive contribution, I mean; there are
>bunches o' proposals that they don't like.)
The overwhelming majority of teachers I have known are very competent at what
they do. They're more honest and more professional than MDs, PhDs, attorneys,
and Enron Execs.
I think summing up their contribution to policy as being solely about making a
buck is unfair.
Have you read about the bonuses awarded to Enron Execs. in 2001 when certain
stock prices were reached? See today's NY Times.
WahTaWah41
>My
>wife was formerly a public school teacher, so I'm not speaking of this just
>as a disgruntled former student.
Why'd she leave the public schools?
If it's private, please disregard. I ask because it might help frame my
understanding.
Again, I want to know what fraction of all the teachers you've known are
incompetent.
>Behavior problems are
>reclassified as psychological problems/learning disabilities, in part
>because the psychology industry has invented new problems so they can get
>more money for treating them,
Thanks for reminding me. Teachers are also more honest and professional than
psychologists and psychiatrists.
For the most part, I agree with your statement above.
I am waiting for certain mental health cartels in certain cities to be charged
under RICO laws.
[points snipped but not disputed]
>You couldn't set it up better if you were trying to sabotage schools.
I would add "white flight" to the list of causes of degradation of schools.
>Between the IDEA and the ADA, you basically eliminate the authority of
>teachers and schools to deal with disruptive kids appropriately.
Is this a play on one of Eliot's lines from "The Hollow Men"?
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow"
What's "IDEA"?
Micky DuPree
: Nieporent wrote:
:: Who exactly is blocking the avenues of reform? Their sole
:: contribution to the policy debate is "Raise our salaries" and "Make
:: it harder to fire us." (Positive contribution, I mean; there are
:: bunches o' proposals that they don't like.)
What's your proposal for attracting desperately needed math and science
teachers to the profession that doesn't involve raising salaries or some
other in-kind monetary incentive?
There was a time when primary and secondary school teaching was largely
conducted by talented and dedicated women because it was a women's
profession with the attendant low salary and low status. Many of the
most talented teachers (sometimes of both sexes) have since been lured
away because of the need for more money to support families, the opening
up of the business world to women, the decreasing support for the
teacher in the classroom, and the increasing demonization of teachers.
It remains a low-status and relatively low-paying job despite the
pivotal role it plays in society and the potentially high dividends it
can pay society in the long run.
: The overwhelming majority of teachers I have known are very competent
: at what they do. They're more honest and more professional than MDs,
: PhDs, attorneys, and Enron Execs.
Same here. I've met and had some bad teachers, but they were easily
outnumbered by the good ones.
: I think summing up their contribution to policy as being solely about
: making a buck is unfair.
Especially when addressing the issue of manpower shortages.
-Micky
Jeremy Billones
Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>wahta...@aol.com (WahTaWah41) writes:
>
>: Nieporent wrote:
>
>:: Who exactly is blocking the avenues of reform? Their sole
>:: contribution to the policy debate is "Raise our salaries" and "Make
>:: it harder to fire us." (Positive contribution, I mean; there are
>:: bunches o' proposals that they don't like.)
>
>What's your proposal for attracting desperately needed math and science
>teachers to the profession that doesn't involve raising salaries or some
>other in-kind monetary incentive?
The AFT said the entry level salary for a teacher in 1998 was $26k, while
the average was $40k. Could it be better? Of course. Is it a crisis?
Hard to say; I can find dozens of links to teacher's salaries, but next to
nothing about any other industry except doctors, accountants, and athletes.
I doubt you'll ever get teachers to get paid as much as, say, computer admins.
(Not that I'd be a teacher even if teachers got paid more. I'd suck at it.)
I think the transportation infrastructure needs the first dollar a little
more. (Of course, here in Virginia we can't get either :p)
--
Jeremy Billones
"If you are "fighting" vi, it should not try and give helpful hints, it
should munge your cursor, screw up your terminal, rot13 your mailbox and
call your girlfriend for a date." - Pim van Riezen
Annie Keitz
wrote:
>I think the transportation infrastructure needs the first dollar a little
>more. (Of course, here in Virginia we can't get either :p)
And one should point to the state of Virginia when talking about the
dangers of anti-tax mania running amuck. Clearly the state especially
Northern Virginia is in crisis mode yet people are whining about their
tax assessments in Fairfax County and the politicians downstate still
keep singing the song about how we shouldn't raise taxes. Guess what?
The house is on fire and somebody needs to pay for the firetruck to
come and put it out!
Annie
Stephen Fuld
"Micky DuPree" <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in message
news:GsnI1...@world.std.com...
> wahta...@aol.com (WahTaWah41) writes:
>
> : Nieporent wrote:
>
> :: Who exactly is blocking the avenues of reform? Their sole
> :: contribution to the policy debate is "Raise our salaries" and "Make
> :: it harder to fire us." (Positive contribution, I mean; there are
> :: bunches o' proposals that they don't like.)
>
> What's your proposal for attracting desperately needed math and science
> teachers to the profession that doesn't involve raising salaries or some
> other in-kind monetary incentive?
One possible answer is to pay a higher salary to math and science teachers
than to english and history teachers. Yes, this could cost more money, but
not nearly as much as raising all teacher' salaries. But many teacher's
unions are opposed to this as "unfair". The fact that scientists and
mathematicians make more money in the "real world" than writers and
historians is not relevant to their way of thinking.
I am not saying that this is definitly "the answer". But the problem is
that the entrenched monopolistic school administrations and teachers unions
have the power to prevent many potential solutions from even being tried.
(I won't repeat my vouchers rant here. <applause> Thank you very much!
:-) )
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam>
WahTaWah41
>One possible answer is to pay a higher salary to math and science teachers
>than to english and history teachers. Yes, this could cost more money, but
>not nearly as much as raising all teacher' salaries. But many teacher's
>unions are opposed to this as "unfair". The fact that scientists and
>mathematicians make more money in the "real world" than writers and
>historians is not relevant to their way of thinking.
I think you are correct. The liberal arts teachers' seem to suffer from an
inferiority complex and admit only reluctantly that their skills are less
marketable.
I do know of one large school district that does indeed pay science teachers
premium wages, due to their short supply. I don't know if that's also true
about math teachers.
margu...@swbellspaminacan.net
> One possible answer is to pay a higher salary to math and science teachers
> than to english and history teachers. Yes, this could cost more money, but
> not nearly as much as raising all teacher' salaries. But many teacher's
> unions are opposed to this as "unfair".
I think a lot of rational people, who know what teachers in every
discipline do and how hard they work, would call it "unfair."
The fact that scientists and
> mathematicians make more money in the "real world" than writers and
> historians is not relevant to their way of thinking.
Just as the fact that men are often supporting families means that they
should be paid more than women for the same work?
It's an interesting theory, but in practice ALL teachers worth their
salt work hard. They put in the same extra hours, deal with the same
crackpots, perform the same tedious disciplinary duties. They all get
22-minute lunch periods in rooms with seating for only 1/4 of the people
trying to eat. They all counsel sad kids, discipline unruly ones, mentor
the brilliant and slow alike, and show love to them all. Just because
one person's skills might be more "marketable" in the general economy is
not justification for paying him/her more for the same work.
Pay the math/science teachers more and make them take on additional
duties so that teachers who are paid less would work shorter hours, and
you might be on to something.
And another thought - I know scientists with PhD's who make LESS than I
do because they're in research science. Should those people, if they
take up teaching, make less money than teachers who came from more
high-income jobs?
> I am not saying that this is definitly "the answer". But the problem is
> that the entrenched monopolistic school administrations and teachers unions
> have the power to prevent many potential solutions from even being tried.
What about making the work environment more palatable? That's why most
of the math/science people I've known to leave teaching make that
choice. It's not about the money - it's about being treated like
second-class citizens while performing one of the most difficult and
most valuable services in the country. (My personal favorite is "I pay
your salary," to which I counter "I pay for YOUR child to go to school." <g>)
This is my suggestion for improving the public schools - make parents
responsible for their children's behavior, grades, and test scores. In
the last ten years, particularly, parents have decided that everyone
ELSE'S children must behave, that courses must be more challenging
without equalling more work, and that everyone be a "winner" regardless
of how low the quality of the work submitted. Just recently a choir
teacher whose students represented their school at the state level was
dismissed two days after the performance because the parents said "she
made the students work too hard."
THAT'S why we have low test scores, ladies and gentlemen - parents have
lowered the bar on what constitutes acceptable work levels. It used to
be that we'd get requests for teachers to limit homework on Wednesday
nights because of church committments. Now we can't give homework when
the sports teams play, when school dances are coming up (the girls get
their hair done the night before and stay up all night, missing class
the next day to finish preening), when parents decide that spring break
starts three days before the holiday, and even - I kid you not - the
night of the Grammy Awards, because it's "important" that kids watch
their "role models."
You think they allow that in Japanese schools?
It's the very parents who come to school to argue about a one-point
question on a test who then turn around and let their kids miss school
because an Olympic athlete is doing a book signing. The dad who
complains his daughter didn't get AP credit is the one who has her
removed from class while Shakespeare is being taught because it's
"immoral." The mom who writes a letter to the principal about the
horrible behavior she witnessed when a school group was at a restaurant
is the one who has her daughter declared ADHD so that she legally can't
be made to behave.
I guarantee that when this self-obsessed group of absentee parents have
to start coming in on weekends to supervise their kids doing their
homework and when they have to give up their power lunches to stand over
their kids and make sure they throw their trash in the cans instead of
at one another, American education will skyrocket. Parents have to do
the parenting. Period. Until they do their job, it doesn't matter HOW
much you pay teachers.
David Marc Nieporent
>> One possible answer is to pay a higher salary to math and science teachers
>> than to english and history teachers. Yes, this could cost more money, but
>> not nearly as much as raising all teacher' salaries. But many teacher's
>> unions are opposed to this as "unfair".
>I think a lot of rational people, who know what teachers in every
>discipline do and how hard they work, would call it "unfair."
>> The fact that scientists and
>> mathematicians make more money in the "real world" than writers and
>> historians is not relevant to their way of thinking.
>Just as the fact that men are often supporting families means that they
>should be paid more than women for the same work?
>It's an interesting theory, but in practice ALL teachers worth their
>salt work hard.
Yes, but as any econ teacher could tell you if schools would actually teach
economics, that's completely irrelevant. Perhaps in Cuba or North Korea,
effort is what counts, but in a free market, supply and demand determine
prices. (Which is why teachers' unions work so hard to make sure that
there's no free market.)
>They put in the same extra hours, deal with the same
>crackpots, perform the same tedious disciplinary duties. They all get
>22-minute lunch periods in rooms with seating for only 1/4 of the people
>trying to eat. They all counsel sad kids, discipline unruly ones, mentor
>the brilliant and slow alike, and show love to them all. Just because
>one person's skills might be more "marketable" in the general economy is
>not justification for paying him/her more for the same work.
Actually, it is. That's all the justification needed.
Stephen Fuld
<margu...@swbellspaminacan.net> wrote in message
news:3C8948F4...@swbellspaminacan.net...
snip
> This is my suggestion for improving the public schools - make parents
> responsible for their children's behavior, grades, and test scores. In
> the last ten years, particularly, parents have decided that everyone
> ELSE'S children must behave, that courses must be more challenging
> without equalling more work, and that everyone be a "winner" regardless
> of how low the quality of the work submitted. Just recently a choir
> teacher whose students represented their school at the state level was
> dismissed two days after the performance because the parents said "she
> made the students work too hard."
While I disagree with your analysis of the pay issues (see David's post
below), I emphatically agree with the points you made about parents and
responsibility. So now, the question is, what precisely can/should we do
about it? Just saying it's bad is usefull, but the real benefit is fixing
it. So please don't say something like "make parents more responsible", but
put it in words that give some action that we can take.
> Parents have to do
> the parenting. Period. Until they do their job, it doesn't matter HOW
> much you pay teachers.
So that is yet another argument that simply pouring more money into our
education system will not be effective in improving schools. Again, I
wholeheartedly agree.
margu...@swbelldiespamdie.net
> While I disagree with your analysis of the pay issues (see David's post
> below),
I understand David's points. I'm not replying to them separately because
this thread's getting unwieldy as it is. I actually like his
explanation, because that means I should be able to get a much easier
and less stressful job at, say, Wal-Mart, while demanding a higher wage
than other workers because I could get more in another sector should I
choose to work there. Cool.
(I know it's more complicated than that, but I'm saying that the reality
is this: if you pay math and science teachers more than other teachers,
then you'd better be prepared for them to ALSO have to teach the other
subjects because the rest of us will quit. <g>)
>So now, the question is, what precisely can/should we do
> about it? Just saying it's bad is usefull, but the real benefit is fixing
> it. So please don't say something like "make parents more responsible", but
> put it in words that give some action that we can take.
It'd never fly, but here goes: public education becomes parental
responsibility through legislation. ::pause for groaning:: I'll distill
my long, long list down to 10, with #10 being a carrot for parents to
actually pay attention to their students' education.
#1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with materials
checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
determined by grade level and difficulty of course. Only exception to
personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material, in
which case they have to sign a statement to that effect and it becomes
either a matter of pro tutoring or mentoring through public agencies.
Parents must also sign weekly "study time" reports until the student's
grade improves.
#2 - Student behaves inappropriately, parent has to perform community
service at the school. One hour when the student just does something
like using foul language or argues with the teacher - after all, the
child learned that behavior at home, either from the parents or from the
parents allowing too much exposure to the media without intervention.
Repeat offenders would have to bring a parent to school with them until
their behavior improved. Serious violations such as fighting, (illegal)
drug use/sale,* or weapons would result in both student and parent being
placed under arrest.
#3 - Student in Honors course fails Honors course, loses right to take
Honors course in that subject for the rest of the school year. As it
stands, kids in Texas aren't even penalized under the No-Pass, No-Play
rule if the course they fail is an Honors one. Wrong. Parents need to
get out of their heads the idea that their kids have a "right" to be in
Honors. Actually, they *do* - but only if they pass.
#4 - Parents get to make one complaining phone call per school year
teacher, except in case of egregious behavior or possible bodily injury.
Let them save up their phone calls to lawyers until the SECOND
detention. This sounds like hyperbole but allow me to assure you it's
not. Three teachers, myself included, were slapped with a lawsuit by a
mother who claimed that her student had a right to come to class late
because "it's part of our culture to walk slowly." (We got it thrown
out. The girl was in TRACK.)
#5 - Parents get to ask for one day per school year "grace period" on
homework/tests because of extracurricular activities taking up too much
of their children's time.
#6 - Parents taking students out of school before vacations begin in
order to extend vacations must do volunteer work at the school upon
return, one day for each day missed. If the days missed are exam days,
then the parents must work two days for each day missed. Monetary
contributions are not acceptable, nor are proxy workers.
#7 - Parents of students who consistently fail or misbehave must attend
parenting classes. The classes will be provided free of charge until the
third need for attendance, at which time the parents must either pay for
them or perform community service at the school.
#8 - Parents must pay additional school taxes on televisions, CD
players, computer games, and other non-educational accoutrements
furnished for use only by the children. Tax rebates will be given for
educational books, software, etc.
#9 - Parents must attend PTA meetings and go to the Open Houses. Each
household must volunteer at least two hours a month as a teacher's aide.
#10 - Parents whose students have outstanding academic and/or behavioral
achievement will receive vouchers toward college tuition or other
further educational means.
But then, I never did get to be a ballerina. <g>
> > Parents have to do
> > the parenting. Period. Until they do their job, it doesn't matter HOW
> > much you pay teachers.
>
> So that is yet another argument that simply pouring more money into our
> education system will not be effective in improving schools. Again, I
> wholeheartedly agree.
Well, since parents will never be held responsible, the next best thing
is making teaching attractive enough that more people will want to do
it. I do it because I was brought up by parents who said that the best
thing one can be is a servant to one's community. I *could* make more
money a lot of other ways, but I choose teaching. My feeling is that if
the good teachers leave, then our country is (forgive the expression)
really screwed.
*I'm in full agreement about the zero-tolerance policies being way, way
overboard. A playground kiss is NOT the same thing as a high school boy
groping a girl as he passes her in the hall, and ANYONE should be able
to carry aspirin.
Meg,
in possession of Advil, a plastic fork, and the occasional opportunity
to hug her boyfriend, and therefore likely to be looking for that job in
the private sector...
WahTaWah41
>I'm saying that the reality
>is this: if you pay math and science teachers more than other teachers,
>then you'd better be prepared for them to ALSO have to teach the other
>subjects because the rest of us will quit. <g>)
You all may quit, but you'll have a much harder time finding another job than
the math and science teachers.
Except for #5, I think your suggestions are *outstanding*. As for #5, I would
not permit any grace period for extracurriculars interfering with schoolwork.
You should publish these suggestions in an essay on our belief that the problem
so often is the parents, so here's a possible fix.
Op-Ed piece in your local paper? Then the New York Times?
Stephen Fuld
<margu...@swbelldiespamdie.net> wrote in message
news:3C898DC3...@swbelldiespamdie.net...
> It'd never fly, but here goes: public education becomes parental
> responsibility through legislation. ::pause for groaning:: I'll distill
> my long, long list down to 10, with #10 being a carrot for parents to
> actually pay attention to their students' education.
In general, I really like your plan. And I'm not sure it wouldn't fly in
some local legislature. If it was tried and did succeed, its use would
grow. I do have a few comments which I interspersed with your items below.
> #1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with materials
> checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
> wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
> determined by grade level and difficulty of course. Only exception to
> personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material, in
> which case they have to sign a statement to that effect and it becomes
> either a matter of pro tutoring or mentoring through public agencies.
Minor change: Parent's non ability to understand the material should not be
an excuse. If that is allowed, all parents will suddenly become "dumb", at
least in so far as signing the form is concerned. I suggest that if a
parent who has at least graduated high school doesn't understand the
material, he/she is required to sign up for some tutoring or equivalent to
learn it.
> Parents must also sign weekly "study time" reports until the student's
> grade improves.
>
> #2 - Student behaves inappropriately, parent has to perform community
> service at the school. One hour when the student just does something
> like using foul language or argues with the teacher - after all, the
> child learned that behavior at home, either from the parents or from the
> parents allowing too much exposure to the media without intervention.
> Repeat offenders would have to bring a parent to school with them until
> their behavior improved. Serious violations such as fighting, (illegal)
> drug use/sale,* or weapons would result in both student and parent being
> placed under arrest.
I really like this. The burden on parents shouldn't be too prohibitive and
it will give them some idea of what is going on in the class room and so
should make them more sympathetic to the situation.
I don't understand this. Are you saying that there should be an extra tax
when someone buys a TV from a store if that TV is for a child? How could
you possibly enforce that? All TVs would be bought "for adult use".
> #9 - Parents must attend PTA meetings and go to the Open Houses. Each
> household must volunteer at least two hours a month as a teacher's aide.
I'm a little leary of this, expecially for single parent housholds where the
parent is working multiple jobs, etc. to get by. Some "fine tuning" may be
in order here.
> #10 - Parents whose students have outstanding academic and/or behavioral
> achievement will receive vouchers toward college tuition or other
> further educational means.
If they have an outstanding acedemic record, they will probably get some
kind of schlorship. I'm not sure simply good behavior is worthy of one.
> But then, I never did get to be a ballerina. <g>
But you were probably told early on that you were good, just to make you
feel better. :-)
> > > Parents have to do
> > > the parenting. Period. Until they do their job, it doesn't matter HOW
> > > much you pay teachers.
> >
> > So that is yet another argument that simply pouring more money into our
> > education system will not be effective in improving schools. Again, I
> > wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Well, since parents will never be held responsible, the next best thing
> is making teaching attractive enough that more people will want to do
> it.
This is directly in conflict with your statement two paragraphs before!
> I do it because I was brought up by parents who said that the best
> thing one can be is a servant to one's community. I *could* make more
> money a lot of other ways, but I choose teaching.
And I, for one, appreciate your efforts.
> My feeling is that if
> the good teachers leave, then our country is (forgive the expression)
> really screwed.
True.
margu...@swbelldiespamdie.net
> You all may quit, but you'll have a much harder time finding another job than
> the math and science teachers.
Considering how many newly-unemployed tech people are suddenly getting
"inspired" to enter the classroom, it would probably be hard for any of us.
> Except for #5, I think your suggestions are *outstanding*. As for #5, I would
> not permit any grace period for extracurriculars interfering with schoolwork.
I put that in there because students who aren't Christian don't get to
observe their holidays unencumbered by schoolwork. Kids at one of my
schools were told that they had a major test (60% of the grade for the
six weeks) in World Geography to be given the morning after the first
Passover seder. When the Jewish students said they'd be at a religious
observance past midnight the night before, the teacher countered with:
"Either tell your parents you can't go, or else stay up all night and
study. Being Jewish is no excuse for not preparing for a test." That
hard-nosed attitude - and I know a lot of people on this list who'd
agree with it - wouldn't be so unpalatable if they'd make Christian kids
come in on December 26th for their exams instead of giving them two
weeks off, but that's...well, that's why I put in the exception.
Perhaps I should amend it to say that if a parent requests a "grace
period" for sports or other extracurricular activities, then that parent
must come to school and grade the work and do the necessary data entry
and paperwork updating that goes along with a late assignment?
> You should publish these suggestions in an essay on our belief that the problem
> so often is the parents, so here's a possible fix.
>
> Op-Ed piece in your local paper? Then the New York Times?
That's nice of you - but I doubt that my opinions would ever see the
light of day in a reputable newspaper. The papers can't afford to lose
that much business.
Meg
margu...@swbelldiespamdie.net
> Minor change: Parent's non ability to understand the material should not be
> an excuse. If that is allowed, all parents will suddenly become "dumb", at
> least in so far as signing the form is concerned. I suggest that if a
> parent who has at least graduated high school doesn't understand the
> material, he/she is required to sign up for some tutoring or equivalent to
> learn it.
I like that - except that we'd hear from the single parents just as you
mentioned below about PTA meetings.
> I really like this. The burden on parents shouldn't be too prohibitive and
> it will give them some idea of what is going on in the class room and so
> should make them more sympathetic to the situation.
Thank you.
> > #8 - Parents must pay additional school taxes on televisions, CD
> > players, computer games, and other non-educational accoutrements
> > furnished for use only by the children. Tax rebates will be given for
> > educational books, software, etc.
>
> I don't understand this. Are you saying that there should be an extra tax
> when someone buys a TV from a store if that TV is for a child? How could
> you possibly enforce that? All TVs would be bought "for adult use".
Yes, parents would gleefully lie about who was using what. Remember,
this is my fantasy. I think it would be good if people spent as much on
things that were good for their children as they do to keep their
children entertained (and out of their hair).
> > #9 - Parents must attend PTA meetings and go to the Open Houses. Each
> > household must volunteer at least two hours a month as a teacher's aide.
>
> I'm a little leary of this, expecially for single parent housholds where the
> parent is working multiple jobs, etc. to get by. Some "fine tuning" may be
> in order here.
Yet you liked my idea of parents having to come to school with their
children - what about single parent households/multiple jobs in that case?
Parents are always working multiple jobs, working more hours, having
mandatory meetings, whatever you want to call it, and using that as a
reason not to know what the inside of their childrens' schools look
like. I'm talking about one 90-minute meeting a month, and two hours of
other work during a month. Anyone who really *wanted* to could arrange
that. The aide portion could even be done at home - there's paperwork
galore that can be done.
I guess the bottom line is that people who don't have three hours a
month to give to their children probably should re-think the decision to
start a family.
> > #10 - Parents whose students have outstanding academic and/or behavioral
> > achievement will receive vouchers toward college tuition or other
> > further educational means.
>
> If they have an outstanding acedemic record, they will probably get some
> kind of schlorship.
Not anymore. Scholarships are reserved for two groups - the extremely
poor and the extremely wealthy. People in the middle are scrambling.
I'm not sure simply good behavior is worthy of one.
It should be worth something. There are so few good citizens anymore.
> > But then, I never did get to be a ballerina. <g>
>
> But you were probably told early on that you were good, just to make you
> feel better. :-)
No. My teacher, while kind, was exacting. Even when we were five and six
years old we knew what was required of us. Yes, a lot of girls quit,
(but there was always a waiting list of people desperate to get their
daughters into the studio) but those of us who stayed on learned that
showing up isn't a substitute for hard work. And while I ended up being
adequate for my age, my teacher had the guts to tell my parents and me
that I'd always be welcome in her studio as an amateur but that I should
choose a different artistic outlet for my career.
I thank God that she was in my life. Nowadays she'd be considered a bad
teacher. Says a lot about the decline of the work ethic in American society.
> > Well, since parents will never be held responsible, the next best thing
> > is making teaching attractive enough that more people will want to do
> > it.
>
> This is directly in conflict with your statement two paragraphs before!
It's not in conflict at all. I believe that until parents do their job,
teaching is going to be at best an uphill battle. However, since there's
no way on earth that anyone will ever force parents to do what they
should've been doing all along, I'm saying that we may have to go to
plan B.
> > I do it because I was brought up by parents who said that the best
> > thing one can be is a servant to one's community. I *could* make more
> > money a lot of other ways, but I choose teaching.
>
> And I, for one, appreciate your efforts.
Thank you again. Would that the media were to follow your example.
>
> > My feeling is that if
> > the good teachers leave, then our country is (forgive the expression)
> > really screwed.
>
> True.
Excellent. It's been a stimulating discussion - thank you!
WahTaWah41
>When the Jewish students said they'd be at a religious
>observance past midnight the night before, the teacher countered with:
>"Either tell your parents you can't go, or else stay up all night and
>study. Being Jewish is no excuse for not preparing for a test." That
>hard-nosed attitude - and I know a lot of people on this list who'd
>agree with it - wouldn't be so unpalatable if they'd make Christian kids
>come in on December 26th for their exams instead of giving them two
>weeks off, but that's...well, that's why I put in the exception.
Teachers like the one you describe above help perpetuate the 'teachers are
dumb' stereotype.
I would never count a religious matter as an "extracurricular." We agree,
though that religious matters are special circumstances that absolutely are
deserving of extensions.
It still kills me that Dec. 25 is a federal holiday.
>Perhaps I should amend it to say that if a parent requests a "grace
>period" for sports or other extracurricular activities, then that parent
>must come to school and grade the work and do the necessary data entry
>and paperwork updating that goes along with a late assignment?
Ha ha ha... you're great... More below.
>> You should publish these suggestions in an essay on our belief that the
>problem
>> so often is the parents, so here's a possible fix.
>>
>> Op-Ed piece in your local paper? Then the New York Times?
>
>That's nice of you - but I doubt that my opinions would ever see the
>light of day in a reputable newspaper. The papers can't afford to lose
>that much business.
Meg, get some cajones! This *is* good! I bet 99% of teachers and
administrators, as well as parents in the know, would be grateful to you for
these wonderful ideas. Maybe people would not act on them (maybe they would).
Either way, people would know MORE about what teachers face.
Porter Smith
news:3C8A4A2B...@swbelldiespamdie.net:
> That
> hard-nosed attitude - and I know a lot of people on this list who'd
> agree with it - wouldn't be so unpalatable if they'd make Christian
> kids come in on December 26th for their exams instead of giving them
> two weeks off, but that's...well, that's why I put in the exception.
>
Im 1976 Rutgers College, in an attempt to complete the semester before
Christmas, had final exams scheduled at 6PM on 24 December.
margu...@swbell.net
Yuck. In my thirty-something years as student and teacher I've never
seen or heard of it happening, so that's a new one. Bet there was plenty
of screaming going on and a memo never to do it again.
Porter Smith
>> Im 1976 Rutgers College, in an attempt to complete the semester before
>> Christmas, had final exams scheduled at 6PM on 24 December.
>
> Yuck. In my thirty-something years as student and teacher I've never
> seen or heard of it happening, so that's a new one. Bet there was plenty
> of screaming going on and a memo never to do it again.
>
Lesa
"Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld.pl...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qOri8.24053$106.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > #1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with materials
> > checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
> > wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
> > determined by grade level and difficulty of course. Only exception to
> > personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material, in
> > which case they have to sign a statement to that effect and it becomes
> > either a matter of pro tutoring or mentoring through public agencies.
>
> Minor change: Parent's non ability to understand the material should not
be
> an excuse. If that is allowed, all parents will suddenly become "dumb",
at
> least in so far as signing the form is concerned. I suggest that if a
> parent who has at least graduated high school doesn't understand the
> material, he/she is required to sign up for some tutoring or equivalent to
> learn it.
>
Excuse me, Stephen, but how old are you? In the 20+ years between when a
parent is in school and when a child is in school things can change
dramtically. I know that when I was a student neither of my parents had
taken things like chemistry, physics or calculus . Are you saying that they
should have spent money we didn't have to go back to school and learn these
simply becuase I was now required to take them and when they were in high
school 30 years before they weren't? This is a very narrow sighted comment.
The News
<margu...@swbelldiespamdie.net> wrote in message
news:3C8A4A2B...@swbelldiespamdie.net...
> WahTaWah41 wrote:
> > You all may quit, but you'll have a much harder time finding another job
than
> > the math and science teachers.
>
> Considering how many newly-unemployed tech people are suddenly getting
> "inspired" to enter the classroom, it would probably be hard for any of
us.
>
Meg,
Case-in-point --- My son's Geometry teacher came out of the computer
industry a year ago, at the front
edge of the massive lay-offs in technology. He decided it was worth it to
make the move, because he "wanted"
to teach anyway, and it was the right time. He told me at a recent
parent-teacher conference that he is working
more hours, for less money than he was making, and has never felt more
fulfilled in anything he's ever done in his life.
Not everyone chooses a career for the money.
I myself made a change from the technology world, where I was relatively
successful, to get my Masters degree in
counseling and become a family therapist. Not the same field, of course,
but the money issue is the same. I'm making
about half what I made before, and love what I do about 100 times more.
Not everyone choose a career based on how much money they can make.
Just my two cents.
Steve
margu...@swbell.net
> Case-in-point --- My son's Geometry teacher came out of the computer
> industry a year ago, at the front
> edge of the massive lay-offs in technology. He decided it was worth it to
> make the move, because he "wanted"
> to teach anyway, and it was the right time. He told me at a recent
> parent-teacher conference that he is working
> more hours, for less money than he was making, and has never felt more
> fulfilled in anything he's ever done in his life.
Which is great. But my case(s) in point: I teach in a high-tech corridor
where jobs are drying up at an alarming rate. Parents who came to the
fall Open House and were snotty because I'm "just" their child's teacher
are now working as substitutes and trying to get emergency
certification. It's not just my school, either - the whole district is
glutted with former tech people who come in and demand more than the
(unjustifiably low, IMO) $60 a day for subbing because they're "worth
more." One woman of my acquaintance tried to get a district to accept
her law degree in lieu of a teaching certification because "it's a
harder degree to get." (Never mind that she wanted to teach Pre-AP
Literature without having one day's experience in the classroom...)
> Not everyone chooses a career for the money.
Please re-read my statements about my career. I, also, could make a lot
more money doing other things but I stay in education because I believe
that it's the most important job in our society.
Meg
Kenneth Crudup
>I, also, could make a lot more money doing other things but I stay in
>education because I believe that it's the most important job in our society.
... and I'd like to give you a sincere "Thanks!" from selfish bastards
like myself, as it's hard work, but *someone* has to do what you do.
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: P.O. Box #914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914 ke...@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-0101
Stephen Fuld
"Lesa" <le...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j41j8.27306$q83.6...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld.pl...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:qOri8.24053$106.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > > #1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with
materials
> > > checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
> > > wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
> > > determined by grade level and difficulty of course. Only exception to
> > > personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material,
in
> > > which case they have to sign a statement to that effect and it becomes
> > > either a matter of pro tutoring or mentoring through public agencies.
> >
> > Minor change: Parent's non ability to understand the material should
not
> be
> > an excuse. If that is allowed, all parents will suddenly become "dumb",
> at
> > least in so far as signing the form is concerned. I suggest that if a
> > parent who has at least graduated high school doesn't understand the
> > material, he/she is required to sign up for some tutoring or equivalent
to
> > learn it.
> >
>
>
> Excuse me, Stephen, but how old are you?
52
> In the 20+ years between when a
> parent is in school and when a child is in school things can change
> dramtically.
Certainly. Especially in science.
> I know that when I was a student neither of my parents had
> taken things like chemistry, physics or calculus .
My parents took chemistry and physics (though they were quite different
then). I think teaching calculus was rare in high school but common in
college back then. Certainly it is not new. Basic calculus was developed
in the 17th century! My understanding is that calculus is not required, but
is often offered as an advanced math course. As a slight asside, I suspect
that the students who take calculus in high school are not likely to be the
ones who are disrupting the class, frequently skipping assignments, etc.
I'd certainly be willing to modify my proposal to exclude flunking an
advanced class.
> Are you saying that they
> should have spent money we didn't have to go back to school and learn
these
> simply becuase I was now required to take them and when they were in high
> school 30 years before they weren't?
No. I am proposing that society bear the cost of those tutoring programs as
a public good for those who can't afford it. Especially, some exposure to
the recent advances in science would be very worth while for people who went
to school a long time ago. But your point fails when taken about basic
English or US history, etc. Note also that I practice what I preach, having
taken extension courses in biology and cosmology within the last year, and
reading lots of science books.
> This is a very narrow sighted comment.
Perhaps my further comments will show that my sight isn't so narrow. :-)
The News
I agree -- people in many professions where they were paid on a
supply-demand curve that was slightly skewed do not always have a real
appreciation for the the rest of the world. Others still, who would love to
teach, but have chosen a lifestyle predicated upon the financial earnings of
a career they actually hate doing but cannot afford to leave.
While the free market economy is a wonderful thing, I think, in many cases,
the societal viewpoint has become muddled in the quagmire of "more is
better". If I am paid more than you, then I must be more valuable than you.
Thus, the professional basketball player who can barely read a book becomes
a more important symbol in our modern culture than a national Teacher of the
Year. Young men look at the athelete and aspire to be them.
My older brother and his wife were encouraging their daughter, who is
currently attending college, that she should go into pharmaceutical sales,
not because she has a great love for the industry, or a real interest in the
process of selling -- no, its because she "can make a lot of money" at it.
Now I have nothing against people making money, even a lot of money for what
they do. But I do think our values become screwed up when we stop
considering professions based upon what we imagine doing, and we begin
making these decisions based upon what we can make.
Steve
<margu...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C8CE827...@swbell.net...
WahTaWah41
>Indeed, I know of a new Literature Assistant professor who was stated
>out at $42,500. At the business school, a new economics professor
>(with no publications) would be started out at around $65k.
And is there still a shortage of economics professors compared to literature
professors?
WahTaWah41
>One woman of my acquaintance tried to get a district to accept
>her law degree in lieu of a teaching certification because "it's a
>harder degree to get." (Never mind that she wanted to teach Pre-AP
>Literature without having one day's experience in the classroom...)
This shows how unintelligent lawyers can be.
I echo another: Thanks for teaching the children.
Brett A. Pasternack
> #1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with materials
> checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
> wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
> determined by grade level and difficulty of course. Only exception to
> personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material, in
> which case they have to sign a statement to that effect and it becomes
> either a matter of pro tutoring or mentoring through public agencies.
> Parents must also sign weekly "study time" reports until the student's
> grade improves.
I can see several outcomes from this proposal, many of them bad. Many
parents who will be too proud to sign your statement will give their
kids a terrible education. Social promotion, which is already a problem,
becomes a bigger one as no teacher will give a failing grade to a kid
who is trying but can't do it. Kids with serious learning disabilities
will be getting undue pressure, or worse, at home.
> #3 - Student in Honors course fails Honors course, loses right to take
> Honors course in that subject for the rest of the school year. As it
> stands, kids in Texas aren't even penalized under the No-Pass, No-Play
> rule if the course they fail is an Honors one. Wrong. Parents need to
> get out of their heads the idea that their kids have a "right" to be in
> Honors. Actually, they *do* - but only if they pass.
This, OTOH, seems so logical that I can't believe it doesn't already
exist.
> #4 - Parents get to make one complaining phone call per school year
> teacher, except in case of egregious behavior or possible bodily > injury.
You have GOT to be kidding. The last thing we want to do is to
discourage parents from speaking to teachers. Granted, it's better if
the tone of that interaction isn't unduly negative--but the key there is
"unduly".
I'm thinking in particular of a teenager I know who is autistic. His
sister, who has custody of him, has had to work very hard to make sure
he was receiving instruction at an appropriate level. Your proposal is
essentially to prohibit her from taking the inititive to get him onto
the right educational path--and then to punish her if he then fails a
class that's to difficult for him. That's some catch, that catch-22.
> #8 - Parents must pay additional school taxes on televisions, CD
> players, computer games, and other non-educational accoutrements
> furnished for use only by the children.
Huh? Furnished by who? What do you mean?
> #9 - Parents must attend PTA meetings and go to the Open Houses. Each
> household must volunteer at least two hours a month as a teacher's aide.
Fine--as long as the government requires the parents' employers to make
arrangements to allow them to take part without it threatening their
jobs.
And none of this mentions what happens when parents are unable and/or
unwilling to comply.
Jerri
> And none of this mentions what happens when
> parents are unable and/or unwilling to comply.
Oh, they go to jail ... I'm pretty sure. The whole concept expressed in this
list is pretty jail-like anyways, so jail will probably be a relief to them.
The kids get kicked out of school for having non-complying, non-conforming
parents and that solves the whole problem. The only children that the
teachers will have to deal with will have smiling, complying parents with
jobs that allow them to take unlimited time to help in the schools, and have
the self-restraint to only call the school one time per year, regardless of
their children's progress or lack thereof.
I haven't commented on this up until now because I couldn't believe anyone
was taking it seriously. I take issue with this entire*plan*. My own parents
were uneducated and couldn't have helped me through school if they had been
begged to do so. They gave me a home, food and clothing and the
*opportunity* to go to school and make something of myself ... which is a
whole lot more than anyone ever gave them. It's ridiculous not to take
various circumstances into consideration when planning a wholesale attack on
The Way Things Are Now.
Jerri
userb3
>
>> #1 - Student flunks, parent must tutor him/her personally with materials
>> checked out from the school at no charge. No Kaplan centers for the
>> wealthy, either - Mom and/or Dad has to do it, number of hours
>> determined by grade level and difficulty of course.
Are you concerned with student learning or punishing those evil wealthy
parents? If you're concerned with the student, then he should be
tutored by qualified, certified personnel, right?
>>Only exception to
>> personally tutoring is if the parents can't comprehend the material, in
>> which case they have to sign a statement to that effect
Now there's something that's going to happen: "I ________ am a moron
and bad parent. Please tell all my friends."
>> Parents must also sign weekly "study time" reports until the student's
>> grade improves.
What about the notion of self discipline? What about the notion of
students learning that their actions have consequences.
For that matter, isn't simply being denied course credit, suffering a
lower GPA, losing the right to participate in extra curriculars, and
being required to re-take the class an adequate incentive/punishment
paradigm? Is it possible that we could let individual students,
families, teachers, and schools come up with the best solution for
their particular problems in this instance?
>> #4 - Parents get to make one complaining phone call per school year
>> teacher, except in case of egregious behavior or possible bodily > injury.
Whoa, Nellie! You;re going to restrict my first amendment rights? What
if I'm a very involved parent who is legitimately trying to work wit
the school and my child's teachers? Not all of those phone calls are
going to involve me singing praises.
FWIW, I'm a former teacher, a parent, and the spouse of a teacher.
Often, those complaining phone calls are a tip off to problems that
would otherwise have gone unnoticed. If the price of having parents
involved in a child's schooling is the occasional complaint, that's a
price well worth paying.
>> #8 - Parents must pay additional school taxes on televisions, CD
>> players, computer games, and other non-educational accoutrements
>> furnished for use only by the children.
Once again, are you concerned with the student or simply punishing
well-to-do parents? Who's going to say what's educational and what's
not educational? What if the kid only watched PBS and the Discovery
channel? Whose going to enforce this law? Are homes now open for
unannounced inspections by the parenting police? Do you really know
better than I what is best for my child?
>> #9 - Parents must attend PTA meetings and go to the Open Houses. Each
>> household must volunteer at least two hours a month as a teacher's aide.
And if the local PTA is a crock, only concerned with raising funds for
the basketball team? What if their meetings conflict with work? Do I
have to attend open houses if my son makes straight As, I already know
his teachers socially, and we touch base regularly about my son's
progress?
And those "volunteer" hours - what about my work schedule. I run a one
man brokerage. Who's going to watch out for my clients if the market
crashes on the day I took a morning off to be a teacher's aid?
For that matter, Some of our students have parents who are violent
criminals, drunks, and child molesters. Are these really the people we
want serving as teachers aids? What about the parents who are dumber
than a box of rocks? How will the school handle security concerns with
busload of new adults in and out of the school every day? How much time
is the teacher going to have to spend showing these non-teachers what
to do? Isn't that time taken away from teaching the students?
--
userb3
Music and art education produce better mathemeticians, better scientists, better historians, and even better athletes.
Support art education today.
margu...@swbell.net
haven't read all the posts.
None of this was meant to be literal. I know it's full of
first-amendment violations and unenforceable restrictions, and I said so
from the beginning. The only reason I posted anything was that people
were whining about the union-protected-lazy-shiftless teachers who
didn't know how to fix the schools. I was using hyperbole to describe
things that parents should be doing in the first place - making sure
that their kids do their homework, instilling self-discipline in their
children (that's the big one - parents are so busy making sure that
their kids get "excused" from everything and "rewarded" for being
carbon-based life forms that there's hardly any intrinsic motivation
left), giving equal amounts of leisure activity and study activity, and
keeping themselves from picking up the phone three times a week to
complain about things that mostly aren't even happening.
userb3 said, and I agree completely:
"What about the notion of self-discipline? What about the notion of
students learning that their actions have consequences?"
I love those notions. The problem is that most parents aren't teaching
those ideas anymore. They're too concerned with the student's GPA and
what kind of college the student will get into causing the idea that
children have to learn to stand on their own merits to fall by the wayside.
"For that matter, isn't simply being denied course credit, suffering a
lower GPA, losing the right to participate in extra curriculars, and
being required to re-take the class an adequate incentive/punishment
paradigm? Is it possible that we could let individual students,
families, teachers, and schools come up with the best solution for
their particular problems in this instance?"
Students aren't failing - the teachers are bullied into letting them
take tests over and over again. Students don't have to re-take courses
because the principals make sure no one fails even if they don't turn in
work. The lowest grade we can give for a six weeks is a 50 - even if
the student has done nothing the entire time. Extracurriculars are only
lost for kids who aren't in Honors, at least in Texas. And the number
one cause of students failing is that they don't turn in their work. We
don't live with them, but the parents do, and it's their duty to make
sure their kids are doing their homework and getting it to school.
"Whoa, Nellie! You;re going to restrict my first amendment rights?
I'm not sure that calling a teacher three times a week to complain that
their child's music stand isn't as shiny as another child's music stand
is a first amendment right, but I'll concede the point.
"What
if I'm a very involved parent who is legitimately trying to work wit
the school and my child's teachers?"
Then I bow down to you and call you an angel. Unless you're one of the
parents whose idea of working with the child's teachers means that the
parent calls me at home at 9:30 at night, in which case I have another
name. And Caller ID. <g>
"Not all of those phone calls are
going to involve me singing praises."
But do you really have to make a phone call every time something happens
that you don't like? I'm not saying you DO that, I'm just pointing out
that a lot of phone calls are about trivia that didn't even happen in
the classroom, things that parents could take care of themselves. Case
in point: Girl has the word "Grumpy" engraved on her violin case
(grandfather's nickname). Students at lunch call her "Grumpy." Mother
calls teacher every day to say that someone - outside the classroom,
while the teacher is at another school altogether - has called her child
"Grumpy" and she considers that to be harrassment. Is that really
something the teacher should have to deal with?
What about parents who call and complain about every assignment? The
parents who say that there shouldn't be homework, or that students in
the music program shouldn't have to play in concerts after school? I'm
not making this stuff up. It's happening constantly. The same people who
don't have time to come up to school for a conference find HOURS every
week to be on the phone whining about things that are not actual problems.
FWIW, I'm a former teacher, a parent, and the spouse of a teacher.
Often, those complaining phone calls are a tip off to problems that
would otherwise have gone unnoticed. If the price of having parents
involved in a child's schooling is the occasional complaint, that's a
price well worth paying."
Occasional? What about daily? Isn't there some point at which we cut the
parent off and say "save it for an emergency?" I have 170 students at
two schools, with four preps. I get one 45-minute conference period a
week. The rest of the time I'm answering these phone calls during class
time, depriving students of their education, to explain to someone's
mommy that Susie's grade was lower than Sandy's because Sandy answered
more questions correctly, not because Susie's a minority. Last week I
got a phone call from a student's pastor to complain that I assigned a
student a "satanic" piece - Paganini's "Witch's Dance" from one of the
Suzuki books. He went to the director of Fine Arts to complain (said
director threw him out of her office, hooray). Come on - that's just
ridiculous. There's got to be a better way to register legitimate
complaints and weed out the useless ones. I'm open for suggestions.
"And those "volunteer" hours - what about my work schedule. I run a one
man brokerage. Who's going to watch out for my clients if the market
crashes on the day I took a morning off to be a teacher's aid?"
Can you do something at night? One night a month? Can you, for one night
a month, fill out paperwork just on your own child so that the teacher
won't have to? You'd be amazed at how much time it saves when parents
fill out the duplicate, triplicate, and quadruplicate forms that get
sent with every child.
All I know is that schools with active volunteer parents are the ones
that tend to be the most successful. Think your local PTA is a crock
that's only concerned with sports? Get other concerned parents together
and take over. Don't allow it to happen.
"Once again, are you concerned with the student or simply punishing
well-to-do parents? Who's going to say what's educational and what's
not educational? What if the kid only watched PBS and the Discovery
channel? Whose going to enforce this law? Are homes now open for
unannounced inspections by the parenting police? Do you really know
better than I what is best for my child?"
Again, it was hyperbole, a fantasy that parents will spend as much time
on educational things as on giving the kids toys to get them out of
their hair.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop and get back to work - even though it's
Spring Break, that holiday the horrible teachers unions have given us
even though we don't deserve it. My bottom line is this - give teachers
time and room to teach, and treat them like professionals instead of
indentured servants, and the schools will be better places. End of lecture.
userb3
>"What
>if I'm a very involved parent who is legitimately trying to work wit
>the school and my child's teachers?"
>
>Then I bow down to you and call you an angel.
That seems a little overdone, but OK.
>Unless you're one of the
>parents whose idea of working with the child's teachers means that the
>parent calls me at home at 9:30 at night, in which case I have another
>name. And Caller ID. <g>
If a parent doesn't get home until 9:30, that's when they can call. But
I'm with you on the caller ID. Add an answering machine and you;re set.
>"Not all of those phone calls are
>going to involve me singing praises."
>
>But do you really have to make a phone call every time something happens
>that you don't like? I'm not saying you DO that, I'm just pointing out
>that a lot of phone calls are about trivia that didn't even happen in
>the classroom, things that parents could take care of themselves.
Obviously your parents call more than any of my wife's students or my
old students. A few times a week the phone rings from a student or
parent. Unless we're in the middle of something its not that big a
deal. Caller ID weeds out the pests.
>Case
>in point: Girl has the word "Grumpy" engraved on her violin case
>(grandfather's nickname). Students at lunch call her "Grumpy." Mother
>calls teacher every day to say that someone - outside the classroom,
>while the teacher is at another school altogether - has called her child
>"Grumpy" and she considers that to be harrassment. Is that really
>something the teacher should have to deal with?
Why not? You;re the school employee the parent knows best. Of course, I
think you'd be entitled to suggest the student get a new violin case or
grow a thicker skin, and if the parent continues to call, you can
direct her to the principal. It wouldn't hurt you to take the primary
offender aside and suggest they quit hassling the girl.
Petty crap like this is part of what teachers, bosses, supervisors, and
parents have to deal with.
>What about parents who call and complain about every assignment?
Remember that caller ID and the answering machine? Ever consider an
unlisted phone number? Lots of other folks who work with the public
take that route.
> The
>parents who say that there shouldn't be homework, or that students in
>the music program shouldn't have to play in concerts after school?
Direct them to the principal of school board.
>I'm
>not making this stuff up. It's happening constantly. The same people who
>don't have time to come up to school for a conference find HOURS every
>week to be on the phone whining about things that are not actual problems.
I think you're exaggerating a little, but your point is taken. People
bitch. As for the conference vs direct contact, remember that schools
typically schedule open houses for the school's convenience, not
parents. Our local school holds their open house from 8 'til 3 on a
weekday. Can you guess why a parent might call the teacher directly?
>FWIW, I'm a former teacher, a parent, and the spouse of a teacher.
>Often, those complaining phone calls are a tip off to problems that
>would otherwise have gone unnoticed. If the price of having parents
>involved in a child's schooling is the occasional complaint, that's a
>price well worth paying."
>
>Occasional? What about daily?
Remember that caller ID and answering machine?
>Isn't there some point at which we cut the
>parent off and say "save it for an emergency?" I have 170 students at
>two schools, with four preps. I get one 45-minute conference period a
>week.
Doesn't sound too bad. My wide has 400 students in k-12, 15 minutes for
lunch, and no prep period (shes the art teacher). Parents who want to
contact her have two options - catch her at school (she typically stays
until 6 O'clock or so) or call her at home. If a parent works until 5
or 6, I can't begrudge them for calling us at home.
> The rest of the time I'm answering these phone calls during class
>time,
I'm surprised you do that. The lovely and talented Mrs Userb3 doesn't
take calls during class - callers leave a message wit the office unless
its an emergency.
depriving students of their education, to explain to someone's
>mommy that Susie's grade was lower than Sandy's because Sandy answered
>more questions correctly, not because Susie's a minority. Last week I
>got a phone call from a student's pastor to complain that I assigned a
>student a "satanic" piece - Paganini's "Witch's Dance" from one of the
>Suzuki books. He went to the director of Fine Arts to complain (said
>director threw him out of her office, hooray). Come on - that's just
>ridiculous. There's got to be a better way to register legitimate
>complaints and weed out the useless ones. I'm open for suggestions.
Use the office. Don't answer the phone. Learn to be succinct.
>"And those "volunteer" hours - what about my work schedule. I run a one
>man brokerage. Who's going to watch out for my clients if the market
>crashes on the day I took a morning off to be a teacher's aid?"
>
>Can you do something at night? One night a month? Can you, for one night
>a month, fill out paperwork just on your own child so that the teacher
>won't have to? You'd be amazed at how much time it saves when parents
>fill out the duplicate, triplicate, and quadruplicate forms that get
>sent with every child.
You're going to let parents handle your paperwork? Isn't that what your
prep periods are for? And again, what about the unqualified or
unsuitable parents?
FWIW, I do volunteer at school. But its not for everybody, and some
people simply can't or shouldn't.
> Think your local PTA is a crock
>that's only concerned with sports? Get other concerned parents together
>and take over. Don't allow it to happen.
The rest of the parents think that's what PTA is for. The community has
spoken.
"Miss Manners is hard pressed to think when it would not
be appropriate to write a letter of thanks to one's host. Possibly a
guest should refrain from expressing gratitude after having left with the
host's forks or spouse."
margu...@swbell.net
> If a parent doesn't get home until 9:30, that's when they can call. But
> I'm with you on the caller ID. Add an answering machine and you;re set.
Have both of them. Parents then call the principal the next morning and
complain that I don't return their calls.
> Obviously your parents call more than any of my wife's students or my
> old students. A few times a week the phone rings from a student or
> parent. Unless we're in the middle of something its not that big a
> deal. Caller ID weeds out the pests.
I'm talking about calling at school.
> Why not? You;re the school employee the parent knows best. Of course, I
> think you'd be entitled to suggest the student get a new violin case or
> grow a thicker skin, and if the parent continues to call, you can
> direct her to the principal.
We're not allowed to do that. All parent phone calls must be answered by
the teacher, no matter how petty. And I really do think that parents
need to take care or their children's personal problems by calling the
parents of the other kids.
It wouldn't hurt you to take the primary
> offender aside and suggest they quit hassling the girl.
I do that a lot. Then the parents of THOSE kids call the principal and
say I'm accusing their darlings of things that I didn't witness.
> >What about parents who call and complain about every assignment?
>
> Remember that caller ID and the answering machine? Ever consider an
> unlisted phone number? Lots of other folks who work with the public
> take that route.
Again, I'm talking about folks who call me at work. I don't answer
parent phone calls at home unless there's some sort of emergency. If a
kid breaks her strings the night before an audition, then I'll go to her
house and put on new ones. If a kid wants to know why some other student
got a higher grade on a test, that's something that can wait until
business hours.
> I think you're exaggerating a little, but your point is taken. People
> bitch. As for the conference vs direct contact, remember that schools
> typically schedule open houses for the school's convenience, not
> parents. Our local school holds their open house from 8 'til 3 on a
> weekday. Can you guess why a parent might call the teacher directly?
That's ridiculous - parents WORK, and schools should recognize that. Our
open houses are from 7-8:30 p.m.
> Doesn't sound too bad. My wide has 400 students in k-12, 15 minutes for
> lunch, and no prep period (shes the art teacher).
Wow - that's outrageous! Where are the so-called all-powerful teachers'
unions when you need them? I'm so sorry that she's mistreated that way.
It's just...well, outrageous is the only word I can find for it.
Parents who want to
> contact her have two options - catch her at school (she typically stays
> until 6 O'clock or so) or call her at home. If a parent works until 5
> or 6, I can't begrudge them for calling us at home.
Do the parents have a lunch break, and does the school have voice mail?
Parents can't call the banker at 7:30 at night to ask her about their
account. They can't insist that the DPS take their drivers' license
applications after 7 p.m. I'm just asking that they observe business
hours for us except in dire emergency.
> > The rest of the time I'm answering these phone calls during class
> >time,
>
> I'm surprised you do that. The lovely and talented Mrs Userb3 doesn't
> take calls during class - callers leave a message wit the office unless
> its an emergency.
We're required by the district to answer the phone whenever it rings.
Failure to answer the phone between 7:30-4:30 results in being written
up on one's evaluation for being "inaccessible to the public." Most
parents are very, very understanding when I say "I'm in class, may I
call you back at 4:30?" But some just will not get off the phone, and
I've got emergency theory projects for when the parent absolutely,
positively, will not stop talking. My hand signal (hand-puppet talking)
tells the kids to get up and get their workbooks out. It's not like I'm
just leaving them to sit and grow roots.
> Use the office. Don't answer the phone. Learn to be succinct.
Office won't allow us to transfer calls. Must answer the phone during
working hours. Trying to be succinct but can't hang up on people.
> You're going to let parents handle your paperwork? Isn't that what your
> prep periods are for?
Prep periods are supposed to be for writing curriculum, grading,
entering grades, and designing lesson plans. There's not anything close
to enough time for that. There is some paperwork that could be handled
by any parent who can read and write - who's been assigned to what
locker, what the combinations are, which student has checked out which
dress or tux.
And again, what about the unqualified or
> unsuitable parents?
Obviously, people with criminal backgrounds are unsuitable. But unless
the parent is barely functional, there's something he or she can do.
Wipe off the kids' cafeteria tables so that we can have more than a
20-minute lunch period. Stand in the classroom so that we can go to the
bathroom more than once a day. Do "hall duty" where all they have to do
is see to it that the child doesn't leave the building. Not everyone can
use computers, and volunteers shouldn't be told that they aren't skilled
enough to help.
> The rest of the parents think that's what PTA is for. The community has
> spoken.
Between that and the insane schedule your wife has been given, it's a
wonder that the schools are even functioning. The grass really IS a lot
greener on my side.
userb3
>userb3 wrote:
>> If a parent doesn't get home until 9:30, that's when they can call. But
>> I'm with you on the caller ID. Add an answering machine and you;re set.
>
>Have both of them. Parents then call the principal the next morning and
>complain that I don't return their calls.
The principal's heard it before.
>> Obviously your parents call more than any of my wife's students or my
>> old students. A few times a week the phone rings from a student or
>> parent. Unless we're in the middle of something its not that big a
>> deal. Caller ID weeds out the pests.
>
>I'm talking about calling at school.
You have a problem with parents calling you at school?
>> Why not? You;re the school employee the parent knows best. Of course, I
>> think you'd be entitled to suggest the student get a new violin case or
>> grow a thicker skin, and if the parent continues to call, you can
>> direct her to the principal.
>
>We're not allowed to do that. All parent phone calls must be answered by
>the teacher, no matter how petty.
So answer the call and direct them to the principal. Its out of your
hands.
> It wouldn't hurt you to take the primary
>> offender aside and suggest they quit hassling the girl.
>
>I do that a lot. Then the parents of THOSE kids call the principal and
>say I'm accusing their darlings of things that I didn't witness.
Direct them to the principal.
>> Doesn't sound too bad. My wide has 400 students in k-12, 15 minutes for
>> lunch, and no prep period (shes the art teacher).
>
>Wow - that's outrageous! Where are the so-called all-powerful teachers'
>unions when you need them? I'm so sorry that she's mistreated that way.
>It's just...well, outrageous is the only word I can find for it.
>
> Parents who want to
>> contact her have two options - catch her at school (she typically stays
>> until 6 O'clock or so) or call her at home. If a parent works until 5
>> or 6, I can't begrudge them for calling us at home.
>
>Do the parents have a lunch break, and does the school have voice mail?
Many places of work don;t offer their employees phone privileges, and
the school doesn't have voice mail. The office takes a message and
sends it down to her classroom.
>Parents can't call the banker at 7:30 at night to ask her about their
>account.
Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
>> > The rest of the time I'm answering these phone calls during class
>> >time,
>>
>> I'm surprised you do that. The lovely and talented Mrs Userb3 doesn't
>> take calls during class - callers leave a message wit the office unless
>> its an emergency.
>
>We're required by the district to answer the phone whenever it rings.
>Failure to answer the phone between 7:30-4:30 results in being written
>up on one's evaluation for being "inaccessible to the public."
The your problem isn't with parents. Its with the school system. Have
your union take it up with the school board.
J Alex
<margu...@swbell.net> wrote > We're not allowed to do that. All parent
phone calls must be answered by
> the teacher, no matter how petty. And I really do think that parents
> need to take care or their children's personal problems by calling the
> parents of the other kids.
What do you mean by personal problems? Do you really want me to call the
parents of another child and tell them I'll kick their asses til the cows
come home if their child ever hits my child again? While I have no problem
letting my kids know that NOBODY messes with them while I have anything to
do with it, it seems like it would make things even worse for the teacher,
and something that all parties involved would prefer the teacher handle
inside the classroom.
margu...@swbell.net
J Alex wrote:
>
> <margu...@swbell.net> wrote > We're not allowed to do that. All parent
> phone calls must be answered by
> > the teacher, no matter how petty. And I really do think that parents
> > need to take care or their children's personal problems by calling the
> > parents of the other kids.
>
> What do you mean by personal problems?
When parents call to say that Jimmy and Fred used to be best friends but
Fred doesn't like Jimmy anymore so could I please make sure they don't
sit next to each other in class or talk to each other.
Do you really want me to call the
> parents of another child and tell them I'll kick their asses til the cows
> come home if their child ever hits my child again?
Hardly. It'd be nice if the parent could say, "Look, Fred and Jimmy
aren't getting along too well and it's happening outside of class, so
maybe we could get together and talk about it" instead of going to a
third party.
While I have no problem
> letting my kids know that NOBODY messes with them while I have anything to
> do with it, it seems like it would make things even worse for the teacher,
> and something that all parties involved would prefer the teacher handle
> inside the classroom.
If it happens inside my classroom then I'll deal with it, no problem,
and once it gets dealt with it stays dealt with. I'm talking about the
other stuff, the social problems that occur outside of school that
somehow get dragged into school. When I quarrelled with my friends,
their parents called my parents and we all got grounded until we could
be civil. Now the parents don't want to bother with one another and try
to use teachers as intermediaries.
margu...@swbell.net
> You have a problem with parents calling you at school?
Not when there's a genuine issue that needs to be taken up. If Keisha
can't see the board because she broke her glasses or if Billy has a
sprained finger and needs alternate assignments for a couple of days,
then by all means let me know and I'll take care of the problems right
away. But when they call to demand that I call an 11-year-old "Miss
Jones" instead of "Mary" (and that's happening more and more these days
as parents mistake "respect" for "obsequiousness"), or they demand that
their child - and their child only - get another chance at a
playing-for-seating test because the child had a bad day, or they insist
that I make illegal Xerox copies of an entire etude book because they
"don't have time" to go to the music store and pick up a copy and "can't
find their checkbook" to send payment for the books we order from the
music store for just that kind of situation - those are the calls I
really resent because they're just a waste of everyone's time.
> So answer the call and direct them to the principal. Its out of your
> hands.
Not permitted. All parent conversations must be dealt with by the
teacher unless a direct physical threat is made. I will say that the one
time a parent ambushed me at home and beat me up (for testifying against
him in a child abuse hearing), the district supported me 100%.
> >I do that a lot. Then the parents of THOSE kids call the principal and
> >say I'm accusing their darlings of things that I didn't witness.
>
> Direct them to the principal.
See the above.
> Many places of work don;t offer their employees phone privileges,
We know all about that. Many's the time a child has been lying in the
clinic with a temperature, vomiting, and the employer says: "Mrs. Smith
will be unavailable until 5:00." Sick, sick, sick society that tells
people they must have children but doesn't allow the children to be
cared for by the parents.
Maybe schools should issue cell phones to parents with horrid employers.
(I'm not entirely kidding about that...)
and
> the school doesn't have voice mail. The office takes a message and
> sends it down to her classroom.
I wish they'd do that with our school. It gets crazy right before exams.
> >Parents can't call the banker at 7:30 at night to ask her about their
> >account.
>
> Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
> home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
> get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
> at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
It's shouldn't part of being a professional: it's being taken advantage
of by people who should know better. Anyone who has enough money to
employ a broker should have enough social grace to be able to separate
business hours from non-business hours. It's like the jerks who corner
doctors at my synagogue and ask them to take a look at a mole. Rude,
uncivil, and ridiculous.
I'm not saying that doctors shouldn't come to the aid of people who have
heart attacks during services (God forbid), or that teachers should be
unapproachable. But the parent who called me at home the night after my
father died and SCREAMED at me for missing her child's exam the next day
(and yes, she knew about the death - she said I should wait until after
finals to take care of "personal matters") is out of line.
She wrote a letter to the principal, which is now sitting in my file,
stating that I put personal needs ahead of the needs of the child. It's
the current winner in the "stupid parent correspondence" derby, the
previous leader of which was the mother who wrote and complained that
her 11-year-old daughter saw me buying tampons in the grocery store one
weekend. Her beef? "Virgins can't use tampons, and since Miss M. is
unmarried, then she should be a virgin." I'm not kidding. (In his
defense, the principal attached a note stating that the mother was
clearly unhinged but that district requirements forced him to include
the letter in my file.)
> >We're required by the district to answer the phone whenever it rings.
> >Failure to answer the phone between 7:30-4:30 results in being written
> >up on one's evaluation for being "inaccessible to the public."
>
> The your problem isn't with parents. Its with the school system. Have
> your union take it up with the school board.
Unions aren't allowed for teachers in Texas. We have "teachers'
organizations" that are utterly toothless because the bottom line is
that collective bargaining is illegal. The school board is made up of
parents rather like your PTA parents, I would imagine - concerned with
image rather than education. Parents are the ones who insisted that we
not use voice mail because they had a "right" to contact us directly.
My point, and I really did have one way back when, is that parents need
to get more involved in positive ways. Sounds like you do a really good
job and I applaud you for it, and that your wife is working a job that
most people couldn't imagine and doing it with grace and finesse.
This thread was originally about the ills of teacher certification and I
apologize for my part in getting it so far off topic. I'll shut up now, really.
Lesa
"J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dxj8.110123$Dl4.11...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
my autistic son was in public school (HFA, he was in the regular classroom
with an aide) I was lucky if he could name more than 1-2 kids in his class.
The idea that he coudl give me last names, parents names, addresses, etc to
look up a phone number to contact the parents was impossible. And if any of
the parents had unlisted numbers I would have been SOL. 1) The teacher is
the one who has access to the parents, their names and phone numbers and 2)
this is happening at school, so the school staff should be invovled in
dealing with it.
userb3
>userb3 wrote:
>> You have a problem with parents calling you at school?
>
>Not when there's a genuine issue that needs to be taken up.
To the parents involved, these are genuine issues. I agree that they
are often petty, but that's where diplomacy on your part becomes an
essential skill.
>> So answer the call and direct them to the principal. Its out of your
>> hands.
>
>Not permitted. All parent conversations must be dealt with by the
>teacher unless a direct physical threat is made.
This is hard to believe, but if this is true, then your problem is wit
the school. I would seriously consider changing jobs.
Consider it from the parents perspective - what if they have a
legitimate concern and their child's teacher doesn't answer that
concern? Are they served by a system that doesn't allow them to go to
the principal, superintendent, or school board?
What do your administrators do all day?
>> >I do that a lot. Then the parents of THOSE kids call the principal and
>> >say I'm accusing their darlings of things that I didn't witness.
>>
>> Direct them to the principal.
>
>See the above.
So? They filed a complaint to the principal. If you're in the right,
it'll be no big deal.
>I wish they'd do that with our school. It gets crazy right before exams.
>
>> >Parents can't call the banker at 7:30 at night to ask her about their
>> >account.
>>
>> Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
>> home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
>> get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
>> at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
>
>It's shouldn't part of being a professional: it's being taken advantage
>of by people who should know better.
There's where we part company. I'm a professional. I serve my clients.
Sometimes my clients' needs can't be served between 9 and 5 on
weekdays. I work with farmers, who don't know what business hours are.
Last Sunday afternoon, I spent two hours with a client, his banker, and
his attorney working out a deal to keep him in business for another
year. Sunday afternoon was simply the time we could all make it.
>the
>previous leader of which was the mother who wrote and complained that
>her 11-year-old daughter saw me buying tampons in the grocery store one
>weekend. Her beef? "Virgins can't use tampons, and since Miss M. is
>unmarried, then she should be a virgin." I'm not kidding. (In his
>defense, the principal attached a note stating that the mother was
>clearly unhinged but that district requirements forced him to include
>the letter in my file.)
You think a letter complaining about your choice of hygiene products
will hurt you? I'd imagine everyone in the office got a good laugh at
that, and you probably picked up a couple of points for having to
endure that sort of parent.
>> >We're required by the district to answer the phone whenever it rings.
>> >Failure to answer the phone between 7:30-4:30 results in being written
>> >up on one's evaluation for being "inaccessible to the public."
>>
>> The your problem isn't with parents. Its with the school system. Have
>> your union take it up with the school board.
>
>Unions aren't allowed for teachers in Texas.
Beside the point. Take it up with the school. That's where your problem
is.
>My point, and I really did have one way back when, is that parents need
>to get more involved in positive ways. Sounds like you do a really good
>job and I applaud you for it, and that your wife is working a job that
>most people couldn't imagine and doing it with grace and finesse.
You're far too kind, but I'll reiterate - your problems lie with your
school.
>
>This thread was originally about the ills of teacher certification and I
>apologize for my part in getting it so far off topic. I'll shut up now, really.
My comment on certification - 90% of the process is a crock, designed
by university education departments to justify their own existence, and
offering little if any practical application in the classroom.
WahTaWah41
>>> Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
>>> home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
>>> get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
>>> at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
I don't think MDs, attorneys, engineers and PhDs in any field believe that they
are obliged to return calls as soon as possible nor outside of about 9 AM to 5
PM on weekdays.
The comment is based on my experience with these folks.
The guy at the widget plant needs the money more, so s/he may very well be
better about returning calls.
"Professional" these days seems to me to mean "we can push around whomever,
because we're in demand."
userb3
>Userb3 wrote:
>>>> Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
>>>> home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
>>>> get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
>>>> at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
>
>I don't think MDs, attorneys, engineers and PhDs in any field believe that they
>are obliged to return calls as soon as possible nor outside of about 9 AM to 5
>PM on weekdays.
>The comment is based on my experience with these folks.
I work with a lot of PhDs, attorneys, bankers, brokers, commodity
merchants, and accountants. We all have each other's home phone numbers
and use them when necessary. I have my doctor's and dentist's home
numbers and use them when necessary. Do we try to get it done during
business hours? You bet. But if a problem pops up on Wednesday at 7P,
and needs to be resolved right away, we're on the phone.
Lesa
"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net...
> On 13 Mar 2002 16:58:29 GMT, WahTaWah41 wrote:
>
> >Userb3 wrote:
> >>>> Sure they can (and they do). I'm a broker, and my clients call me at
> >>>> home, on my cell phone, and corner me when I'm out to dinner. It can
> >>>> get annoying, but its part of being a professional. The guy who works
> >>>> at the widget plant doesn't have those pressures.
> >
> >I don't think MDs, attorneys, engineers and PhDs in any field believe
that they
> >are obliged to return calls as soon as possible nor outside of about 9 AM
to 5
> >PM on weekdays.
>
> >The comment is based on my experience with these folks.
>
> I work with a lot of PhDs, attorneys, bankers, brokers, commodity
> merchants, and accountants. We all have each other's home phone numbers
> and use them when necessary. I have my doctor's and dentist's home
> numbers and use them when necessary. Do we try to get it done during
> business hours? You bet. But if a problem pops up on Wednesday at 7P,
> and needs to be resolved right away, we're on the phone.
>
I had our dentist, dr, lawyer and all my son's dr's phone numbers before we
moved. I have all my son's current medical team's home numbers. I also
have my kid's orthodontists home number. Our dentist has a beeper
nights/weekends and we have that number. When I was teaching all my
students' parents' had my home number and my cell phone number.
Professionals who care don't let the clock rule their caring.
Stephen Fuld
"Econman" <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> wrote in message
news:lrev8uo5u30cdf4sn...@4ax.com...
snip
>
> Computer Science used to have a massive shortage which is why it is so
> rare to find a young CompSci professor anymore who speaks fluent
> english. It go so bad in Texas that the Legislature got involved and
> mandated english exams for all foreign applicants, although I don't
> think it is enforced as I've never known anyone to take a "real" exam,
> rather a committee confirms he/she can be understood.
>
> Of course, the dot-com bust makes becoming a professor relatively
> attractive again and it will be interesting to see how this turns out
> with regard to demographic trends.
According to an article in last week's Electrical Engineering Times, there
is now a much higher number of applicants for Comp Sci grad school than
before the dot com bust (presumably people with comp sci undergraduate
degrees who got laid off and think now is a good time to go back for more
schooling), and an even bigger than before dip in applicants for comp sci
undergrad degrees. Makes sense given the recent events.
WahTaWah41
>but I stay in education because I believe
>>that it's the most important job in our society.
And econ*driven*man rejoins:
>IMHO, If it was the most important job, it would pay the highest
>salary.
So you would argue that major league baseball players are more important than
teachers.
I would argue the opposite, because I think the total of all teachers' salaries
in the U.S. exceeds the total of all major league baseball players' salaries.
Back of the envelope calculations, with a few dips into the cybersurf for some
(really) rough numbers:
Let's say about 1000 ball players play in the majors, and the average salary is
a million dollars a year. That's a billion dollars spent paying major league
ball players each year.
Let's say about 40 million kids attend primary and secondary school each year.
Assuming a teacher:student ratio of 1:20, this yields about 2 million teachers.
Let's asssume an average salary of $30,000 per teacher. That's 60 billion
dollars spent paying primary and secondary school teachers alone.
Education is 60 times more valuable than baseball.
Likewise, nor is a jar of caviar more important than a five-lb. bag of flour.
--Wah-Ta-Wah's Macroeconomics
Micky DuPree
: I doubt you'll ever get teachers to get paid as much as, say, computer
: admins. (Not that I'd be a teacher even if teachers got paid more.
: I'd suck at it.)
:
: I think the transportation infrastructure needs the first dollar a
: little more. (Of course, here in Virginia we can't get either :p)
A little more than teachers' salaries or a little more than public
education in general? And in either case, would you say the same if you
had kids in public school?
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: It'd never fly, but here goes: public education becomes parental
: responsibility through legislation. ::pause for groaning::
At least in theory, though, it's the electorate who holds the
city councils, school boards, and state legislatures responsible. While
there are many *many* individual exceptions, in the aggregate, public
education is consumer-driven.
[snip list of suggestions]
: Well, since parents will never be held responsible, the next best
: thing is making teaching attractive enough that more people will want
: to do it.
While I can understand your frustration with the parents, isn't the only
possible long-term solution (assuming that there can be one at all) to
make education more attractive to the consumer? I'm not saying I have
an easy way to apply that idea, nor any quick idea as to how to fund any
applications, but maybe (to steal a line from John Lennon) we have to
sell education as effectively as we sell soap.
And to inject just a sliver of on-topic commentary, there's certainly
nothing wrong with a major network television show painting the results
of education in a favorable light.
-Micky
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>The your problem isn't with parents. Its with the school system. Have
>your union take it up with the school board.
I've been reading this thread with growing fascination and not a
little wonder that the schools operate at all. I went to public school
in the 1960s and 70s. No parents--none--volunteered at school except
to bring in cup cakes on party days. Every one of my elementary
classes had at least 32 students, and one had about 40. There was no
teachers' union. There was no phone in the classroom either; expecting
a working teacher to answer a phone is beyond assinine. Parents did
not call teachers at home, ever. It would have been rude.
Communication was by notes, and it worked well. Parent conferences
were held in the evening, once every grading period. Homework and
tests were sent home to be signed by parents and returned every week.
If there was an emergency the office handled it; that's what
administrators did. Teachers did not discipline students; they taught.
Discipline is what principals were for (it only took one vigorous
paddling to convince me to stop being a jerk. Pain has evolutionary
power.)
We walked in straight lines, without talking. We went to the head when
everybody else went. We sat in long, straight rows, did the same work
at the same time, and raised our hands before speaking. Amazingly, we
emerged educated. What a concept.
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Jerri
> I've been reading this thread with growing fascination and not a
> little wonder that the schools operate at all. I went to public school
> in the 1960s and 70s.
[snippage of a memory of going to school much like my own]
When students were students and teachers were teachers, and parents pretty
much stayed out of the way except when a kid really got in trouble.
Jerri [not sure when/why/how things changed ... but they sure did ...]
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>When students were students and teachers were teachers, and parents pretty
>much stayed out of the way except when a kid really got in trouble.
>Jerri [not sure when/why/how things changed ... but they sure did ...]
Right. All I ever hear now is "the parents have to be more involved",
but stories like those in this thread make me ask "why would you ever
want that?" <g>
In the old days parents expected the school to educate the kid while
the parents worked to pay the taxes. Principals were great, fearsome
beasts with whom you DID NOT want to have a private conversation.
Teachers taught, and kept all their messy adult issues out of ear-shot
in the teacher's lounge. Kids lived in Kid Land, did what they were
told (mostly) and only became screaming beasts at recess and lunch. I
remember my father telling me everybody has a job, and mine was to go
to school. I treated it that way, even in the lower grades.
Like you say, somewhere along the line the inmates took over.
J Alex
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote >
> I've been reading this thread with growing fascination and not a
> little wonder that the schools operate at all. I went to public school
> in the 1960s and 70s. No parents--none--volunteered at school except
> to bring in cup cakes on party days.
volunteered. They mostly helped by giving special lessons to the kids at the
bottom of the class.
Unless your mom was one of the volunteers, you probably didn't interact much
with the volunteers, so maybe you just didn't notice/remember it.
Jeremy Billones
I think more on transportation would boost the local economy, which would
mean more revenue and more money for schools :)
Seriously, I like to think my answer wouldn't change just because I had
a more personal interest in the school system. Of course, I had a non-
standard trip through the education system, so I can't really use
personal experience as a baseline.
Hey, want some light reading? 2000 State Expenditure Report at
<http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/00exprpt.pdf> sez the national
average for state funding of K-12 education is 22.5%. VA pays... 18.1%.
OK, we suck. You win :) We spend more than the national average on
college, though.
--
Jeremy Billones
"I don't read one post. I don't understand people who read one post. I don't
understand people who leave half a thread sitting in the newsreader. I don't
understand people who say they've had enough. How can you have enough of
feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer?" - MD a AS
Jerri
> Really? I was in elementary school in the 70's
> and loads of moms volunteered. They mostly
> helped by giving special lessons to the kids at the
> bottom of the class. Unless your mom was one
> of the volunteers, you probably didn't interact much
> with the volunteers, so maybe you just didn't
> notice/remember it.
When I was in elementary school [in the 60s], we saw Moms who would
occasionally show up AT THE OFFICE to deliver sweaters that had been left
behind or to bring in treats for their kid's birthday. That was *it*. No
mothers volunteering to help anyone at all. Not that many moms worked
outside the home, at least in my neighborhood, but they managed to keep
themselves busy somehow. There was a PTA meeting once a month, I think. Oh,
and it was considered cheating if your parents helped very much at all with
your homework.
Jerri
userb3
>We walked in straight lines, without talking. We went to the head when
>everybody else went. We sat in long, straight rows, did the same work
>at the same time, and raised our hands before speaking.
Historians still marvel at your class being the only one in all of
recorded history to have behaved so perfectly.
WahTaWah41
>No, for reasons above, I would argue *the* jar of caviar (assuming its
>real and not that blue light special stuff) is more important; however
>all bags of flour exceed the importance of all jars of caviar.
Well why didn't you say that in the beginning? ;)
Chris Crandall
: >I stay in education because I believe
: >that it's the most important job in our society.
Econman (eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com) wrote:
: IMHO, If it was the most important job, it would pay the highest
: salary.
Don't you mean IMHR, with R standing for the economists' rationalist
religion?
Not all "pay" for work is in salary. And certainly, you would be making a
funny argument to suggest that the most important university presidency
was for Hillsdale College, which pays more than a million a year. Your
simplistic economic argument here would get you no A's in your own
classes. Jobs "pay" all sorts of things, including prestige, access to
emotional rewards, leisure time, rewarding use of valued skills, work
rules, vacation pay, health benefits, access to cars, sports equipment,
private planes, opportunities to impact legislation, and so on.
Not all "pay" is salary.
Chris Crandall
: It's like the water-diamond paradox. Why is water, so essential for
: life, so inexpensive relative to say diamonds, something so
: unnecessary for human existence.?
: It is because of the relative scarcity of diamonds compared to water.
This would be a nice example, if it weren't for the fact that diamonds are
widely available, and not scarce in any way. The value of diamonds are
cleverly manipulated by a powerful cartel that promotes all kinds of nasty
things, including trafficking in "conflict diamonds" that promote slughter
of civilians in west Africa, that promote the segregated working
conditions in South Africa (that help promote the spread of AIDS because
of supporting working conditions that preclude families being present and
support economies of prostituion), and that the pricing of diamonds in
almost no way is correlated to scarcity, availability, or inherent value.
I think you'd have to be crazy to buy diamonds--it's a fad no better than
the tulip craze or the dot.com bubble.
Chris Crandall
: In the old days parents expected the school to educate the kid while
: the parents worked to pay the taxes. Principals were great, fearsome
: beasts with whom you DID NOT want to have a private conversation.
: Teachers taught, and kept all their messy adult issues out of ear-shot
: in the teacher's lounge. Kids lived in Kid Land, did what they were
: told (mostly) and only became screaming beasts at recess and lunch.
And we were able to keep those pesky non-whites out of the good schools
then, too.
A past, Golden Age.
Not.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>And we were able to keep those pesky non-whites out of the good schools
>then, too.
>
>A past, Golden Age.
>
>Not.
How old are you? I had lots of non-whites in my Virginia public school
classes in 1965 and later. Also white migrant farm-workers' children,
a different, but still serious problem. The difference was all of us
came to school to learn, or, if we didn't, we were made to try through
escalating means if necessary. Self-esteem wasn't a mission
requirement.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Really? I was in elementary school in the 70's and loads of moms
>volunteered. They mostly helped by giving special lessons to the kids at the
>bottom of the class.
I graduated HS in 1976, so my elementary days were in the 60s. We
didn't have moms around. They weren't needed or wanted. There simply
wasn't room in the class. I went to school in the Va. Beach system
during a time of explosive growth. Va. Beach in those years was one of
the top-10 fastest growing cities in the country; the city built
roughly 50 new elementary schools in about 15 years. One year we
didn't have desks until October. Another year my neighborhood got
bussed a long way to a different school, but only the 5th graders. The
other grades got farmed elsewhere. Very disruptive.
>Unless your mom was one of the volunteers, you probably didn't interact much
>with the volunteers, so maybe you just didn't notice/remember it.
Perhaps one reason there weren't a lot of volunteers was that the
majority of us kids were military dependents and a lot of our fathers
were at war or at sea. We had fatherless kids due to the war, disabled
dads at home horribly disfigured, we had POW-fathered kids. Some of
the mothers worked, but even those that didn't were effectively single
parents a lot of the time. It was just a different attitude than I see
now. Teachers were treated as professionals, but the idea that parents
should just go into classes and pitch in was laughable. The attitude
was akin to your dentist asking you to come in on Tuesdays to help
with sterilization. Parents paid for educational services and expected
the schools to provide them. Period. In exchange they supported the
schools with taxes, attended conferences, read and signed report
cards, and doubled up on discipline when we got in trouble (IOW,
double paddling.)
My elementary teachers were all female until 6th grade, but many were
young and inexperienced (Va. Beach was a good job market for those
looking for husbands.) Regardless, I recall them as stern but fair,
and very by-the-book. Little time was wasted on frills. In class we
worked and worked hard. We had a lot of homework. It was just the way
it was, and the parents supported it. I read stories like those in
this thread and wonder when so many parents became litigious wimps.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:12:21 -0600, Steve Bartman wrote:
>
>>We walked in straight lines, without talking. We went to the head when
>>everybody else went. We sat in long, straight rows, did the same work
>>at the same time, and raised our hands before speaking.
>
>Historians still marvel at your class being the only one in all of
>recorded history to have behaved so perfectly.
I have pictures. <g>
I also recall sitting next to a girl in 6th grade who asked to go to
the bathroom, was refused, and peed in her chair. Tough yes, but it
sure cut down on the need for hall monitors.
We were as hellish as kids anywhere, but outside, and after school. We
actually went home and exercised. Imagine that.
We walked along the walls without speaking because the schools weren't
air-conditioned and classroom doors were always open for ventilation.
In those days everybody focused on the teacher at the front of the
room who was, oddly enough, TEACHING. We didn't have these "work
tables" I see now in elementary schools where the kids run around to
each other trying, I suppose, to teach each other. (Kids didn't know
anything in the old days; that's why we were in school.) It was
probably also a factor that pretty much all of the administrators, and
some of the 6th and 7th grade teachers, were veterans, some of WWII,
some of Korea or Vietnam. They naturally imposed discipline on
disorder.
Now Jr. High and HS were a different story. But in e-school, which in
my city went through 7th grade, there was order.
userb3
>>Historians still marvel at your class being the only one in all of
>>recorded history to have behaved so perfectly.
>
>I have pictures. <g>
Yeah, so do I, and there'd better be a fat envelope on my doorstep by
Monday or everybody'll have pictures!
Jerri
> And we were able to keep those pesky
> non-whites out of the good schools
> then, too. A past, Golden Age. Not.
Not every school system was segregated, even back in the days when kids were
students, and teachers taught, and parents coughed up milk money once a week
and signed report cards.
Jerri
userb3
>So you would argue that major league baseball players are more important than
>teachers.
>
>I would argue the opposite, because I think the total of all teachers' salaries
>in the U.S. exceeds the total of all major league baseball players' salaries.
Very good point! I'm impressed!
Of course, the flip side is that the market tells us any given
individual ball player is worth more than any individual teacher.
>Education is 60 times more valuable than baseball.
Cool.
>Likewise, nor is a jar of caviar more important than a five-lb. bag of flour.
There's where you veered off course. Flour is more important than
caviar. But a given pound of flour is worth much less than a given
pound of caviar.
WahTaWah41
>Of course, the flip side is that the market tells us any given
>individual ball player is worth more than any individual teacher.
I have been thinking about this argument. It assumes there is a market for
individual ball players.
How many families would want the skills of one bona fide major league ball
player? (Mathematically obsessed but lonely housewives, be nice.)
How many families would want the skills of one teacher? (Mathematically
obsessed but lonely househusbands, do likewise.)
I don't think most families would pay Mr. Baseball a cent if he couldn't teach
their kids.
So what is the meaning of "worth" above?
I think ball players, CEOs, and hollywood stars are paid all this money not
because society values them at huge amounts. It's just a lovely consequence of
mass marketing: Millions of people paying a few hundred dollars a year each for
tickets to the ball games and movies and Libby's frozen vegetables simply adds
up to easy money for these professions.
Someone please put this into a more logical framework. I'm sure it can be done
in 60 words or less. Points subtracted from your score for verbosity.
Annie Keitz
wrote:
>Econman (eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com) wrote:
>: It's like the water-diamond paradox. Why is water, so essential for
>: life, so inexpensive relative to say diamonds, something so
>: unnecessary for human existence.?
>: It is because of the relative scarcity of diamonds compared to water.
>
>This would be a nice example, if it weren't for the fact that diamonds are
>widely available, and not scarce in any way. The value of diamonds are
>cleverly manipulated by a powerful cartel that promotes all kinds of nasty
>things, including trafficking in "conflict diamonds" that promote slughter
>of civilians in west Africa, that promote the segregated working
>conditions in South Africa (that help promote the spread of AIDS because
>of supporting working conditions that preclude families being present and
>support economies of prostituion), and that the pricing of diamonds in
>almost no way is correlated to scarcity, availability, or inherent value.
While you're spot on about DeBeers controlling the market and conflict
diamonds, you're incorrect about segregation, DeBeers in fact was one
of the behind the scenes agents that forced South Africa to end
Apartheid. The opened up jobs to "colored" South Africans long before
other businesses did and opened up jobs for blacks that other
companies wouldn't offer. The Oppenhiemer family realized long before
most of South Africa that Apartheid wasn't good for business.
That said however the working conditions at the mines where men are
separated from their families for months on end do contribute to the
prostitution problems and AIDS.
>I think you'd have to be crazy to buy diamonds--it's a fad no better than
>the tulip craze or the dot.com bubble.
I agree and I've been a gem collector for years. If I ever get married
I will ask for a Sapphire not a Diamond....
Annie
Jerri
> In addition to getting my but paddled and busted
> in every grade and often several times within those
> individual grades, I also had to stand in the corner,
> wear the "I talk too much hat", and occasionally
> sent to the principle's office where one was given
> a choice: a "busting" with an even longer sawed-off
> ore, or a phone call to one's parents. I always
> chose the busting. :-)
Hmmmmmm, I think I must have gone to a very non-violent school. The worst
that could happen was being sent to the principal's office, who might
supposedly spank a person ... but I never heard of a kid getting spanked. We
pretty much did what we were told to do. Except this one guy ... who was
caught in 5th grade, in music class taught by the 4th grade teacher ... he
was talking or something instead of singing. So the teacher tried to pull a
power play and told him to sing the song all by himself. He said no. She
ordered him to do it again ... and they went around for a couple of rounds
of NO! ... and she sent him to the principal's office. The rest of us just
sat there, stunned. That kind of thing just didn't happen. She was kind of
stunned, too. She called music class off and returned to her own classroom
and our teacher returned to us.
I tell you. Ultimate civilization. The matter was never mentioned again. I
just remember things like that.
Jerri [also remembers the high school choir director using a kid as an
eraser on the chalkboard because the kid told him the day before state
contest that he wouldn't be going ... we were stunned then, too]
userb3
>Userb3 echoed Econman, pinned under Crandall's foot:
>>Of course, the flip side is that the market tells us any given
>>individual ball player is worth more than any individual teacher.
>
>I have been thinking about this argument. It assumes there is a market for
>individual ball players.
Given that we have several thousand working professional ball players,
I will consider this assumption well founded.
>How many families would want the skills of one bona fide major league ball
>player? (Mathematically obsessed but lonely housewives, be nice.)
How many of them want a bale of cotton or a tractor? Not many, but we'd
agree that there is a market.
>How many families would want the skills of one teacher? (Mathematically
>obsessed but lonely househusbands, do likewise.)
>
>I don't think most families would pay Mr. Baseball a cent if he couldn't teach
>their kids.
But they do pay for cable to get ESPN, go to ball games, buy wheaties
with ball players on the box, subscribe to Sports Illustrated, buy
clothes with players numbers and pictures on them, etc etc etc.
>So what is the meaning of "worth" above?
The amount the market pays for a given item.
>I think ball players, CEOs, and hollywood stars are paid all this money not
>because society values them at huge amounts.
You have a new theory of economics that doesn't consider the trading
price of an item an indication of its value?
> It's just a lovely consequence of
>mass marketing:
Marketing is simply a way to improve value.
--
userb3
Preserve Liberty - Fight School Prayer!
userb3
>Same here, except teachers did discipline students at my schools
>)especially me :-) It was called "paddling" as I remember and was
>accomplished with essentially a ping-pong paddle.
Teachers still paddle here. Works.
Jerri
> I agree and I've been a gem collector
> for years. If I ever get married
> I will ask for a Sapphire not a Diamond....
I like sapphires, but my heart belongs to rubies.
Jerri [out of the diamond biz, too]
Jerri
> Anyway, I chose one of my sister's records (she's ten
> years older) "Fire" by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown.
> It starts with a rather demonic yelling: " I AM THE GOD
> OF HELL FIRE....." then some rather retro rock n roll
> kicks in. The teacher thought me possessed by Satan
> (seriously) and called my parents. My dad who hated
> rock n roll asked where I learned of that music so I
> ended up narc'ing out my sister. :-)
That was a *very* popular song when I was younger. I can still hear that guy
yelling ... brings back my youth ... wait a minute ... hang on ... I'm gonna
rock myself out of this Barcalounger and boogie!
Jerri [rather fond of hard rock and heavy metal]
David Marc Nieporent
Ah, just the sort of intellectual rebuttal we've come to expect from Chris.
No content, but an attack on others as racist.
A better rebuttal would have simply been to point out that this
rose-colored memory is likely highly inaccurate. There has always been
school violence, dropouts, poor teaching, etc. In particular, graduation
rates from "the old days" weren't very good at all. And school curriculums
have likely gotten more rigorous, since more people are expected to go to
college now.
There are many good things about schools in "the old days." A student who
misbehaved wasn't excused because someone invented a "disability" to
explain it away. The idea that memorizing facts was a bad thing hadn't yet
gained such acceptance. But it certainly wasn't utopian.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Kenneth Crudup
Econman <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> says:
>Same here, except teachers did discipline students at my schools
>)especially me :-) It was called "paddling" as I remember and was
>accomplished with essentially a ping-pong paddle. However, once I got
>into 6th grade I had my first male teacher and he used a sort of
>sawed-off ore with holes drilled into it upon which the name of the
>process was changed to "busting" by him.
We had that, too (and I won't say I never faced it :-).
Nowadays, though, you'd have some misguided, Zero-Tolerance school
board calling it "child abuse".
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: P.O. Box #914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914 ke...@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-0101
WahTaWah41
Wah wrote:
>>So what is the meaning of "worth" above?
>
>The amount the market pays for a given item.
Why not how much one family or even one individual *pays* for a given item?
You said "the market tells us any given individual ball player is worth more
than any individual teacher." Maybe all that this means is that the absolute
numbers of dollars that are their respective salaries are different. It may say
nothing about the "value" of the ball player and the "value" of the teacher.
Given that families probably pay more for their kids' education than they do
for baseball tickets, perhaps it's fair to say that the value of a teacher is
higher to a family.
And if value may be equated with "importance," then teachers are more important
according to Chris AND Enronman.
WahTaWah41
>I was a disruptive argumentative little brat, and if
>I was a teacher, I would have beat my ass everyday.
>
>I guess today they call it ADD :-)
Don't be so quick to smile. They do.
WahTaWah41
You're welcome.
Wah-Ta-Wah
President, "Bring Back Panther!" Association
J Alex
"Kenneth Crudup" <ke...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:xebk8.4191$44.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <n6429u85f1n13qlq4...@4ax.com>,
> Econman <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> says:
>
> >Same here, except teachers did discipline students at my schools
> >)especially me :-) It was called "paddling" as I remember and was
> >accomplished with essentially a ping-pong paddle. However, once I got
> >into 6th grade I had my first male teacher and he used a sort of
> >sawed-off ore with holes drilled into it upon which the name of the
> >process was changed to "busting" by him.
>
> We had that, too (and I won't say I never faced it :-).
>
> Nowadays, though, you'd have some misguided, Zero-Tolerance school
> board calling it "child abuse".
>
It IS child abuse.
I can train a dog without hitting it. Why can't a school do the same thing
with a child?
userb3
>userb3 wrote:
>Wah wrote:
>>>So what is the meaning of "worth" above?
>>
>>The amount the market pays for a given item.
>
>Why not how much one family or even one individual *pays* for a given item?
Because we were talking about market value, not value to a given
individual.
>You said "the market tells us any given individual ball player is worth more
>than any individual teacher." Maybe all that this means is that the absolute
>numbers of dollars that are their respective salaries are different.
And that number represents their value, as determined by the market.
David Marc Nieporent
Econman <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I figured as much.
>I know that at least 95% of the official "disability letters" students
>bring me (for more time on exams) are for ADD, and at my school we
>have a new one "test anxiety".
>At one time it was rather rare to have a student with an official
>disability now it is rare not to have dozens.
>At some point, perhaps the people who test normally will be
>outnumbered by the abnormal ?
Of course. There's no constituency to lobby *against* this sort of
inanity. In favor of these types of rules you have the psychology
industry, the disability industry, and the parents.
Once a disability is invented, there's no way to uninvent it.
Jerri
> "Kenneth Crudup" <ke...@panix.com> wrote
> > Nowadays, though, you'd have some misguided,
> > Zero-Tolerance school board calling it "child abuse".
> It IS child abuse. I can train a dog without hitting it.
> Why can't a school do the same thing with a child?
I've seen school boards do some pretty stupid things lately ... I mean
*REALLY STUPID* things ... right there in public for everyone to see and
know they did ... but letting some bozo with a paddle beat on kids' butts
would rank right up there on the stupid-o-meter. Maybe it's because I did go
to schools in which corporal punishment just wasn't done ... and students
still managed to behave themselves *and* learn what was being taught ...
that I think it's just not necessary if the schools are run right. Anyone
can turn a gorilla loose to beat the monkeys into submission. Doesn't mean
the monkeys won't throw poopie at the next guy that walks past, though.
Jerri
WahTaWah41
>Yeah, I figured as much.
>I know that at least 95% of the official "disability letters" students
>bring me (for more time on exams) are for ADD, and at my school we
>have a new one "test anxiety".
May I pry: Is this a college?
If so I am disheartened. Does this mean that college faculty have to deal with
disruptive students who claim the problem is ADD? Gosh this is awful to
imagine.
>At one time it was rather rare to have a student with an official
>disability now it is rare not to have dozens.
>
>At some point, perhaps the people who test normally will be
>outnumbered by the abnormal ?
I think the courts are going to get into this heavily in the next decade and
come down not necessarily on the side of the "disabled."
WahTaWah41
>There's no constituency to lobby *against* this sort of
>inanity. In favor of these types of rules you have the psychology
>industry, the disability industry, and the parents.
>
>Once a disability is invented, there's no way to uninvent it.
Here's a pleasant note on this from today's Associated Press:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O'Connor: Disabilities Act Has Gaps
By ANNE GEARAN
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says the high court's heavy load of
disability rights cases is the result of holes in a 1990 landmark civil rights
law.
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written and passed hurriedly by
Congress, O'Connor told a lawyers' conference Thursday.
``It's an example of what happens when ... the sponsors are so eager to get
something passed that what passes hasn't been as carefully written as a group
of law professors might put together,'' O'Connor said. ``So it leaves lots of
ambiguities and gaps and things for courts to figure out.''
She said the court's current term probably will be remembered as the
``disabilities act term'' for the number of cases dealing with the civil rights
law. She wrote the unanimous decision in the most significant disability rights
case on the court's docket this term.
In that case, as in all previous cases dealing with disabilities on the job,
the high court narrowed the reach of the ADA. Ruling in the case of an assembly
line worker with carpal tunnel syndrome, O'Connor wrote that medical conditions
that only prevent someone from doing some workplace tasks do not qualify as a
disability under the law.
Two other ADA decisions are expected before the court adjourns in late June.
``Boy, are we trying to figure out some of the disabilities act issues,''
O'Connor told her audience at Georgetown University's law school. ``This act is
one of those that did leave uncertainties in what it was Congress had in
mind.''
The law, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, forbids discrimination
against the disabled on the job and elsewhere. It is probably best known for
mandating wheelchair ramps and handicapped-equipped bathrooms in public
buildings.
After the court's ruling in the carpal tunnel case, one member of Congress took
strong exception to O'Connor's reading of the law.
``As the congressman who shepherded the legislation through the House of
Representatives, I believe that the 'intent of Congress' was clearly more
expansive than Justice O'Connor's ruling would suggest,'' Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., wrote in The Washington Post.
Hoyer warned of ``the perils of judicial attempts at retroactive
mind-reading,'' and suggested Congress could amend the law to re-establish some
protections the court has taken away.
O'Connor spoke one day after a second lawmaker lectured the high court for
taking too much power from Congress.
``As someone elected by the citizens of my state to legislate, I am profoundly
troubled by the extent to which the judiciary has abrogated Congress' powers in
the past few years,'' Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist and a group of federal judges Wednesday.
Schumer, a liberal-leaning legislator frequently at odds with the conservative
tilt of the high court, listed an ADA case among several in which the Supreme
Court has struck down or narrowed laws passed by Congress.
[Non ADA stuff snipped]
Ann Keitz
wrote:
Yeabut all the good ones are mined out, you can't find good ones
anymore only the icky brownish purplish ones :-( Also rubies are less
durable as they are more likely to have inclusions and cracks,
sometimes like Emeralds they are oiled to seal the cracks up.
In short I'd want a good durable stone to last forever like a marriage
should <g>....
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
J Alex
"Econman" <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> wrote in message
news:slj29u8d325fohvi4...@4ax.com...
> Because although positive reenforcement is very useful and of course
> should represent the lion's share of a pedagogical strategy, there are
> certain students and certain situations where a mild "controlled
> beating" is the most efficient method of corrective behavior that
> produces the desired result and minimizes the externality of the
> disruptive student to others.
>
> On a personal and admittedly anecdotal note, I've noticed parents who
> never physically discipline their children to generally have offspring
> more resembling animals than people. They are uncontrolled, poor
> mannered, an embarrassment (or should be) and anything but happy.
> Their parents tend to say "no" constantly and over time the child
> learns there *really* are not any consequences of their actions.
I agree that your friends sound like poor parents, but they need to learn
parenting skills, not just take up corporal punishment.
Discipline has two basic parts:
1) Redirecting from bad behavior. This means NOT saying no constantly,
instead change the subject, move away from whatever it is that's causing
contention.
2) Consequences for behavior (both good and bad).
We've never hit our kids, but they're obedient (usually <g>) because they
know we mean what we say, and we recognize and always comment on good
behavior.
Philosophies of effective management carry over very nicely to parenting.
Some of my favorite books that can be applied to both parenting and the work
place:
Don't Shoot the Dog (can't recall the author)
The One Minute Manager (trendy management book 10 - 20 years ago, but has
useful tips that work for me as a parent and a manager)
The Discipline Book - Great book by pediatrician Dr. William Sears.
Your comment about parents who don't hit their kids "generally have
offspring more resembling animals than people." is exactly my experience, as
I would say both my children and my dogs are very well behaved, and none of
them have needed to be hit.
Kenneth Crudup
"Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net> says:
>... but letting some bozo with a paddle beat on kids' butts
>would rank right up there on the stupid-o-meter.
*Where* and *when* did you grow up? Paddling was commonplace activity
when I was in HS, and the parents knew of it and condoned it.
-Kenny, Chicagoland area, Wirt HS class of '82
Jerri
> "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net> says:
> >... but letting some bozo with a paddle beat
> >on kids' butts would rank right up there on
> > the stupid-o-meter.
> *Where* and *when* did you grow up? Paddling
> was commonplace activity when I was in HS, and
> the parents knew of it and condoned it.
Ottumwa, Iowa ... Ottumwa High School "Class of 1972" ... "Rights and Honor
We Pursue! We're the Class of '72!" Actually, the most civilized place I've
ever been. I haven't lived there for over 20 years, but I still get back
there.
Paddling as a commonplace activity? Sounds deviant. Especially in high
school. Sounds suspicious in junior high school. Yikes!
Jerri
David Marc Nieporent
>>Yeah, I figured as much.
>>I know that at least 95% of the official "disability letters" students
>>bring me (for more time on exams) are for ADD, and at my school we
>>have a new one "test anxiety".
>May I pry: Is this a college?
>If so I am disheartened. Does this mean that college faculty have to deal with
>disruptive students who claim the problem is ADD? Gosh this is awful to
>imagine.
I can't answer for Econman, but I doubt it. What colleges have to deal
with is not disruptive people, but people who seek special accomodations
for exams.
You know, it's "unfair" to make someone with certain alleged "disabilities"
take a timed test, because they just can't handle it, so they have to get a
special version with extra time, or a take-home exam. Or they need their
own special room to take the test in, so they won't get distracted.
>>At one time it was rather rare to have a student with an official
>>disability now it is rare not to have dozens.
>>At some point, perhaps the people who test normally will be
>>outnumbered by the abnormal ?
>I think the courts are going to get into this heavily in the next decade and
>come down not necessarily on the side of the "disabled."
The courts only have limited say in the matter, though. And if they
restrict too much, the disability advocates will lobby congress for more
help against those mean ol' businessmen who "put profits over people."
David Marc Nieporent
Econman <eco...@worldlyphilosophy.com> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2002 00:45:12 GMT, wahta...@aol.com (WahTaWah41) wrote:
>>And if value may be equated with "importance," then teachers are more
>>important according to Chris AND Enronman.
>LOL !!!!
>Spit a bit of diet coke on the monitor upon reading that one.
>If value is not equated with importance then what you're saying is
>everyone is irrational and hasn't a clue what they desire, therefore
>are in need of a fiduciary to force them to accept what they need
>rather than permitting what they desire.
I think you're misusing words here. The water-diamond paradox (which I was
going to cite when you first wrote that "if they were more important,
they'd be paid more") is exactly on point. Water's more important but
doesn't cost more. Similarly, teachers are more important but don't cost
more.
Steve Bartman
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>A better rebuttal would have simply been to point out that this
>rose-colored memory is likely highly inaccurate.
Who was there, me or you? <g>
There has always been
>school violence,
Ricky Sloshmann had a wicked aim with a fork-full of sweet potato and
a working fulcrum . . .
> dropouts,
Yep, the drop-out rate peaked in third grade. Those boys were soon
doing hard time on the chain-gang with recalcitrant sixth-graders from
a neighboring district.
> poor teaching, etc.
It was "poor" if you didn't keep up for sure. Kids were allowed to
fail in those days, and even offered the boon of summer school if they
couldn't read by the end of first grade.
In particular, graduation
>rates from "the old days" weren't very good at all. And school curriculums
>have likely gotten more rigorous, since more people are expected to go to
>college now.
That's true. Of course the first 1.5 years of college are spent
finishing high school these days, so it's relative.
>There are many good things about schools in "the old days." A student who
>misbehaved wasn't excused because someone invented a "disability" to
>explain it away.
We had a couple of disabled kids, but they involved those metal halos
to correct scoliosis. Over-active kids were called by their proper
name: boys.
The idea that memorizing facts was a bad thing hadn't yet
>gained such acceptance.
"Half a league, half a league, half a league onward,
"All into the valley of death rode the six-hundred!"
One of my finest hours. "Ozymandius" OTOH closed after opening night.
The critics were not kind.
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Jerri [also remembers the high school choir director using a kid as an
>eraser on the chalkboard because the kid told him the day before state
>contest that he wouldn't be going ... we were stunned then, too]
>
A choir director able to stiff-arm a teenager. Wonderful!
Steve Bartman
There was a wire service story this morning about a new study that
attempted to actually measure the percentage of kids with ADD
empirically, and not through teachers' reccos, etc. It reported the
true rate as about 7.5% I believe. I know my M-I-L, a recent middle
school nurse in a southern state, reported she was issuing either
Ritalin, tranks, or Prozac et al to approximately 50% of the student
body.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>I can train a dog without hitting it. Why can't a school do the same thing
>with a child?
>
Because the dog WANTS to learn.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Paddling as a commonplace activity? Sounds deviant. Especially in high
>school. Sounds suspicious in junior high school. Yikes!
My e-schools paddled for fighting (what I got tagged for), and other
kid felonies, but usually it was a note home, or in serious cases a
phone call.
Junior high and HS didn't paddle, but did the dreaded in-school
suspension. Basically a study hall where you were intensely
supervised, then in most cases an hour or two after school helping the
janitors clean. Usually pushing a broom, but if you pissed them off it
was a toilet brush.
J Alex
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:rf639u4u9vuf5ubsd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:53:00 GMT, "J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I can train a dog without hitting it. Why can't a school do the same
thing
> >with a child?
> >
> Because the dog WANTS to learn.
>
> Steve
> --
Jerri
"Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Jerri [also remembers the high school choir
> >director using a kid as an eraser on the
> >chalkboard because the kid told him the
> >day before state contest that he wouldn't be
> > going ... we were stunned then, too]
> A choir director able to stiff-arm a teenager. Wonderful!
Even more wonderful ... the choir director was a very short middle-aged man.
The kid in question was a hulking bass around 6 feet. Of course, one must
realize that this particular choir held this particular choir director in
such high esteem that we would have erased the board with the bass
ourselves, had he requested such. He was a man *not* to be trifled with.
Jerri
Jerri
> I remember about 1971 or so our music teacher,
> in a fit of misplaced hippness, put aside the "Ballad
> of the Green Berets" and played a little ditty
> entitled "DOA."
I recall a teacher letting a student put on the album "Woodstock", which was
just fine until Country Joe and the Fish started playing.
Jerri