Executive Order to forgive $50,000 in student debt

[Andylusion]

I looked up three school systems. The private school, the middle class school I went to, and the inner city school.

The inner city spent more money per student by a fairly large margin.
The middle class school spent less, by about 25%.
And the school that spent the least amount of money per student, was the private school. They spent almost 50% of as much money on students, as the inner city school.

I went to a private Catholic school in my primary education years. The small school was run by Sister Dennis. If you had a problem with your teacher, you went to Sister Dennis. If you were late for class, the teacher sent you to Sister Dennis. If a light bulb was burned out in one of the hallways, you reported it to Sister Dennis. She would actually get on a ladder and change it herself. Sister Dennis handled any and all problems.

We didn't have lockers, we didn't change classes, we didn't have a cafeteria, we didn't have school buses. During the warmer months when it got hot, the nun or teacher would open up a window, and if we were lucky, the boys would be allowed to take off their tie.

When the school needed money beyond what parishioners could fund, we had bake sales, rummage sales, went house to house and sold cookies.

Later I attended a public school, and my Lord, what a difference. Multiple school buses, football fields, football teams, air conditioning, a cafeteria, a principal, assistant principal, secretaries, maintenance people, several counselors, all doing the same job Sister Dennis used to do all by herself.

This is why.

So in my opinion public school teachers are in fact over paid for the results they get.

If you are to lay the onus on teachers alone. My experience is if the parent(s) doesn't care about their child's education, all the best teachers in the country won't make a difference in a failing student.

No, I don't lay the onus on teachers alone. But in any other context, would you pay more for less?

Just think about it logically, in any other context, any other at all, would you pay more money... for less product and service?

If you had two gas stations, and one was selling for $2/gallon, and the other was $3/gallon, would you go to the more expensive gas station? If you had two burger joints selling identical burgers, and one was $5, and the other $15, would you pay $15 for an identical burger to the $5 burger?

No.

There are a ton of aspect that are why public schools are garbage, that do not include just teachers... but teachers are actually very much part of the problem, because they support the unions that oppose any of the reforms that would improve the results.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Exorbitant pay and benefits

agree

"soft" employment

agree

such a silly idea

also agree, no reason for such palatial benefits and sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much time off

Palatial benefits? You really should lay off the drugs and alcohol while posting. BTW, I guess you are another know-it-all talking about "time off".

As a teacher, a typical day began with a 45 minute commute to work. I still arrived 45 minutes to an hour before the students. I normally did my planning for the next day after school and then coached sports, the pay for which was below minimum wage because it was paid by the season. Another 45 minute commute, and I would often get home by 7 pm if I didn't have a game to coach. After dinner, 2-3 hours grading homework was required. Then, it was crawl off to bed so I could do it all again the next day.

Summers we were required to do 80 hours in-service training at our school and if the district required, even more. Any other time I was not working, I was usually looking for another job because schools like those fresh young things straight out of college because they could hire two of them for my meager paycheck, That should give you an idea how bad the starting pay was.

Got any other misconceptions of what a teacher's day was like? I did it for 19 years and was an assistant principal almost 2 years.

OMG, what horse shit. "a typical day began with a 45 minute commute to work"

Are you freakin' serious? This proves what a joke you are. Do you think none works don't commute? Seriously?

Honest, this entire post shows how freakin SPOILED teachers are. You have no clue what a real worker goes though.

80 hours? 80 freakin hours? For the entire summer and you have the nerve to even utter this?

You coach sports is a choice and I know of no one with such a cushy part time job. And you have no commute to get to this job.
BTW, teachers tend to be horrible coaches. They would never be hired as coaches in club sports. This is yet another teacher perk.

Honest, I "get" that you don't get it. Trust me, you have it better than about anyone as a teacher.

And teh benefits are TOTALLY out of whack for such a crappy job. You could NEVER get such benefits in the private sector.

Dude, you TOTALLY and COMPLETELY SPOILED. So much so that you do not even know it.

Then go get a job as a teacher and stop your embarrassing, jealous crybabying, ya dick.

for someone like me it's way too big a pay cut, even given how over paid they are
Plus, like I said, I have far too much drive to settle for being a school teacher.

I thought that also, until I took a $25,000 pay cut to be a teacher. Most people would not last through lunch despite having all that drive. My money says you would be one crying for Momma the first time some little snot-nosed run called your bluff.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When I was in high school, I went to an upper middle class school, rated one of the best in the central Ohio area.

One day I was invited to tour a private school in the area. At the time I was in 11th Grade. I was around 8th graders at the private school. What I found was that those 8th graders were using the exact same study material that I was using in 11th grade.

A few years later I got to thinking about that, and started looking up the how much money did each school system spend on students.

I looked up three school systems. The private school, the middle class school I went to, and the inner city school.

The inner city spent more money per student by a fairly large margin.
The middle class school spent less, by about 25%.
And the school that spent the least amount of money per student, was the private school. They spent almost 50% of as much money on students, as the inner city school.

Then I looked up test results, and academic performance.

The results were the exact opposite. The school that spent the least amount of money on students, had the highest test results in nearly every academic area. The school that spent the most, had the worst possible results. The school that spent the least, had the best results.

Yet in spite of this, teachers at public schools are paid more, for significantly worse academic results.

And even then, teacher at privart schools are significantly happier with their jobs, than teachers at public schools. They are happier while earning less money, and achieving better educational results.

So why is that?

View attachment 454477

This is why.

So in my opinion public school teachers are in fact over paid for the results they get.

Ever lead a horse to water? Can you make them drink?

 

[Andylusion]

When I was in high school, I went to an upper middle class school, rated one of the best in the central Ohio area.

One day I was invited to tour a private school in the area. At the time I was in 11th Grade. I was around 8th graders at the private school. What I found was that those 8th graders were using the exact same study material that I was using in 11th grade.

A few years later I got to thinking about that, and started looking up the how much money did each school system spend on students.

I looked up three school systems. The private school, the middle class school I went to, and the inner city school.

The inner city spent more money per student by a fairly large margin.
The middle class school spent less, by about 25%.
And the school that spent the least amount of money per student, was the private school. They spent almost 50% of as much money on students, as the inner city school.

Then I looked up test results, and academic performance.

The results were the exact opposite. The school that spent the least amount of money on students, had the highest test results in nearly every academic area. The school that spent the most, had the worst possible results. The school that spent the least, had the best results.

Yet in spite of this, teachers at public schools are paid more, for significantly worse academic results.

And even then, teacher at privart schools are significantly happier with their jobs, than teachers at public schools. They are happier while earning less money, and achieving better educational results.

So why is that?

View attachment 454477

This is why.

So in my opinion public school teachers are in fact over paid for the results they get.

Ever lead a horse to water? Can you make them drink?

Well you can't when the horse things he's entitled to a drink for free, and that you can't kick him out of the drinking area, because people won't let the horse be expelled.

The bottom line is, the current system needs changed, and if teachers unions won't allow the changes needed to either lower the cost of education to the level of the education they are providing... then they need abolished completely.

I would privatize the entire education system.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, we paid the farmers in the form of subsidies.
Then we paid them again in the first round of bail outs
Then we paid them again in the second round of bail outs
Then we pay them again when we buy the food they harvest.

And farm subsidies only started when Trump took office?

No. But the bailouts did.

 

[candycorn]

FREE STUFF !!!

SOCIALISM !!! YAY !!!

it's all good.....until you run out of other peoples money

Did the farmers refuse their $24B in socialist support (on top of the subsidies)?

" Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much. "

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back

The president was already spending double his predecessor to spare farmers the cost of his trade war. Now the price is reaching unsustainable levels.

www.politico.com

You don’t know what the F your talking about, which doesn’t surprise me. Maybe you should sit down with a Rancher or Farmer and educate yourself before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.

Fuck off.

First we subsidized these guys...then we bailed them out twice. And we're still having to pay for food.

As I said...fuck off.

Of course we have to pay for food. If you didn't have to pay for food, everyone would got take all the food they could, and everyone else would starve.

Yes, we paid the farmers in the form of subsidies.
Then we paid them again in the first round of bail outs
Then we paid them again in the second round of bail outs
Then we pay them again when we buy the food they harvest.

As I said..... conservatives are against all bailouts. All. Meaning... all. That is why the tea party was formed, was to oppose bailouts.

But yes still have to pay for food when you buy. Always. Whether you have a bailout or not, giving away food for free is a great way to bankrupt society and have mass starvation. Learn from Venezuelan refugees.

But Conservatives are all for the guy who both caused the need for the bailouts and authorized the bailouts themselves? Strange....

That is what the subsidies and bail outs did..paid for the food. Right? Or did they just pocket the money in return for voting for your blob?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When I was in high school, I went to an upper middle class school, rated one of the best in the central Ohio area.

One day I was invited to tour a private school in the area. At the time I was in 11th Grade. I was around 8th graders at the private school. What I found was that those 8th graders were using the exact same study material that I was using in 11th grade.

A few years later I got to thinking about that, and started looking up the how much money did each school system spend on students.

I looked up three school systems. The private school, the middle class school I went to, and the inner city school.

The inner city spent more money per student by a fairly large margin.
The middle class school spent less, by about 25%.
And the school that spent the least amount of money per student, was the private school. They spent almost 50% of as much money on students, as the inner city school.

Then I looked up test results, and academic performance.

The results were the exact opposite. The school that spent the least amount of money on students, had the highest test results in nearly every academic area. The school that spent the most, had the worst possible results. The school that spent the least, had the best results.

Yet in spite of this, teachers at public schools are paid more, for significantly worse academic results.

And even then, teacher at privart schools are significantly happier with their jobs, than teachers at public schools. They are happier while earning less money, and achieving better educational results.

So why is that?

View attachment 454477

This is why.

So in my opinion public school teachers are in fact over paid for the results they get.

Ever lead a horse to water? Can you make them drink?

Well you can't when the horse things he's entitled to a drink for free, and that you can't kick him out of the drinking area, because people won't let the horse be expelled.

The bottom line is, the current system needs changed, and if teachers unions won't allow the changes needed to either lower the cost of education to the level of the education they are providing... then they need abolished completely.

I would privatize the entire education system.

My Mom and Dad were products of the Great Depression. They had little education back then. My aunts and uncles didn't graduate high school until after I came along and my Dad would celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow had he lived. What do you with the poor kids like me? I joined the military out of high school and now have a BA and and MEd thanks to the GI Bill. My "retirement" job is a defense contractor for the Army. Your plan just guarantees your car will get stripped or stolen by those you consider unworthy of a public education.

Those public educations suck so badly! My youngest and I both attended college on ROTC scholarships. She has a biology degree and is a Captain on the staff of the 101st Airborne. My son was military, as was my daughter-in-law. My oldest works in an optical shop and cares for my grandson who has cancer. She did run a commercial finance company office.My son-in-law is a crash crewman with the Air National Guard and a professional firefighter full time at a military base and part time for the major city as a substitute. Every one of those graduated from public schools. My oldest daughter, son, and daughter-in-law all attended the high school where I taught. Every one of those graduated from public schools.

Let's hear your plan, because all I see is bitching and moaning.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't lay the onus on teachers alone. But in any other context, would you pay more for less?

Just think about it logically, in any other context, any other at all, would you pay more money... for less product and service?

If you had two gas stations, and one was selling for $2/gallon, and the other was $3/gallon, would you go to the more expensive gas station? If you had two burger joints selling identical burgers, and one was $5, and the other $15, would you pay $15 for an identical burger to the $5 burger?

No.

There are a ton of aspect that are why public schools are garbage, that do not include just teachers... but teachers are actually very much part of the problem, because they support the unions that oppose any of the reforms that would improve the results.

I think the unions protect bad teachers too much, but to lay the blame on them for failed students is unfair. Let me expand on that a little:

Years ago I had a next door neighbor that bought a portable basketball hoop. Before I knew it, I had a yard full of neighborhood kids there. They played from the time they got home from school until past dark non-stop. A few times I had to call the cops to get them to stop. If I didn't, they would have played past 10:00 on a school night.

The kids ranged from ages 6 through 17 from what I witnessed. If they are out playing all hours of the night, HTF did they get their homework done? How did they get ample sleep to be attentive in school the next day? There was no possible way. The biggest question is why were their parent(s) not out looking for them to drag them home and make sure they were prepared for the next day in class?

So I stand by my point. The best teacher in the country can't teach a kid who's parents don't care about their education.

 

[Shelzin]

Ever lead a horse to water? Can you make them drink?

That's a fair point.

I believe, through my own experiences, that this is also a valid point:

When I was in high school, I went to an upper middle class school, rated one of the best in the central Ohio area.

One day I was invited to tour a private school in the area. At the time I was in 11th Grade. I was around 8th graders at the private school. What I found was that those 8th graders were using the exact same study material that I was using in 11th grade.

I had the same kind of experience my senior year when I transferred from Iowa to Michigan. I wasn't what you would call a from middle class family. I always had a extreme interest in programming, and my classes reflected that even though I couldn't afford one. But the school had some... A room full of them.

Iowa:
7th grade: Mandatory typing class... AWESOME. I wanted it anyway.

8th grade: Spreadsheets... Absolutely. I have no idea how that would help me in life... But I wanted it. WTF are they and how do they work? I want to know.

10th grade: CAD... Sign me up. Unfortunately it was a bullshit class. They didn't teach anything any kid couldn't figure out in a week of playing, so I just played with the program and taught myself. Bored as hell for the next 8 weeks. Easy A. Disappointing.

11th grade: Programming . FINALLY my junior year they made this class. I was learning BASIC. Print statements, values, loops, If statements... That was awesome. Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie. Not enough people were interested in the Advanced BASIC class, so I talked them into letting me use the room during one of my study halls. Give me the book and access to the computer room I'll teach myself. Please and thank you.

Shit happened my senior year... Moved to Michigan.

Computer programming class I, II, & III???? WHOOOOOO Sign me up!

Guidance councilor: How advanced would you say you are in computer programming? Looking back I'm pretty sure when I said BASIC and those other classes she didn't know BASIC was a damn programming language. Because we argued about putting me in II rather than III... I promise, I'll catch up and figure it out. III it is!

I get in there... And you know what this highest computer programming class is doing? They are teaching them how to make recipe cards in a recipe card already made fuck'n program! This isn't PROGRAMMING it's fucking DATA ENTRY. They have exactly zero programming courses. This fuck'n school has so much more shit than my tiny ass one in Iowa, and I'm watching the COMPUTER PROGRAMMING teacher chicken peck with two fingers showing the class how to fuck'n enter data in their most advanced programming class.

If it wasn't for the amazingly friendly young women I wouldn't have lasted more than a week and went back to Iowa. I can be a lot of things... But I can't be BORED. Trying to teach me as a senior things I learned as a freshmen in many of my classes. I made it a quarter before I had move back or drop out of school... I couldn't take it.

And now... Now my old school is just like that one in Michigan. Fuck you Bush, Fuck you Obama.

 

[Andylusion]

FREE STUFF !!!

SOCIALISM !!! YAY !!!

it's all good.....until you run out of other peoples money

Did the farmers refuse their $24B in socialist support (on top of the subsidies)?

" Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much. "

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back

The president was already spending double his predecessor to spare farmers the cost of his trade war. Now the price is reaching unsustainable levels.

www.politico.com

You don’t know what the F your talking about, which doesn’t surprise me. Maybe you should sit down with a Rancher or Farmer and educate yourself before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.

Fuck off.

First we subsidized these guys...then we bailed them out twice. And we're still having to pay for food.

As I said...fuck off.

Of course we have to pay for food. If you didn't have to pay for food, everyone would got take all the food they could, and everyone else would starve.

Yes, we paid the farmers in the form of subsidies.
Then we paid them again in the first round of bail outs
Then we paid them again in the second round of bail outs
Then we pay them again when we buy the food they harvest.

As I said..... conservatives are against all bailouts. All. Meaning... all. That is why the tea party was formed, was to oppose bailouts.

But yes still have to pay for food when you buy. Always. Whether you have a bailout or not, giving away food for free is a great way to bankrupt society and have mass starvation. Learn from Venezuelan refugees.

But Conservatives are all for the guy who both caused the need for the bailouts and authorized the bailouts themselves? Strange....

That is what the subsidies and bail outs did..paid for the food. Right? Or did they just pocket the money in return for voting for your blob?

Not strange at all. Any given politicians is not the sum of one single position.

Politicians have dozens of positions on dozens of policies and topics.

Trump was terrible on trade and terrible on government spending programs.
But he was fantastic at a dozen other factors that are extremely important to me, namely generally supporting pro-life positions, and being pro-Israel. And other things too.

Equally, you have to remember, no one is voted for in a vacuum.

The alternative to Trump was much much worse. By a wide margin. Democrats celebrate evil, they celebrate infanticide, they celebrate chaos and riots, they celebrate attacking police, harming freedom of speech, and destruction of people's property, and open terrorism.

That is what the subsidies and bail outs did..paid for the food. Right? Or did they just pocket the money in return for voting for your blob?

Of course they pocket the money. So you don't seem to understand how farm subsidies work, so I'll explain.

Say you are Farmer Candy. You run a Peanut Farm. (a bit fitting since most of your posts on this forum are nuts)

The government has a subsidy for peanuts. The subsidy is that you as a Peanut farmer are guaranteed $535 per ton of peanuts.

If the price of Peanuts on the market declines below $535, to say $435, then you get $100 per ton for your peanuts, in addition to the $435 market price.

As a result you end up making the same money you did the year before when it was $535 a ton.

But to the buyers, they still get the market price, which translates to roughly the same price at the store.

The subsidy doesn't offset the price at the store, because the people who make peanut butter, are still paying whatever the market price is.

The subsidy only goes to you the farmer.

A change in the price on the market can cause tens of millions in subsidy payments to farmers like you, while not showing up at all in the price at the store.

So the blunt answer is, it goes in the pockets of the farmers.

There is only an indirect link between the prices you see at the store and the subsidy. That indirect link, is that without those subsidies, you being Farmer Candy, might decide to grow something other than peanuts.

You switching to a different crop. That would reduce the supply of peanuts on the market, which would raise prices. Those incremental increases in prices would eventually filter down into the price of peanut butter at the store being higher.

Not suggesting by any stretch that this justifies subsidies, only that this is the only indirect way that subsidies can over a long period of time, affect the price of products.

But back to your question... yes it goes into your pocket as Farmer Candy. It does not go to the price of food on the shelf at the store. The subsidy is a price guarantee to farmers, not consumers.

Again, I'm against all subsidies. All of them. Always have been.

 

[Turtlesoup]

No, I don't lay the onus on teachers alone. But in any other context, would you pay more for less?

Just think about it logically, in any other context, any other at all, would you pay more money... for less product and service?

If you had two gas stations, and one was selling for $2/gallon, and the other was $3/gallon, would you go to the more expensive gas station? If you had two burger joints selling identical burgers, and one was $5, and the other $15, would you pay $15 for an identical burger to the $5 burger?

No.

There are a ton of aspect that are why public schools are garbage, that do not include just teachers... but teachers are actually very much part of the problem, because they support the unions that oppose any of the reforms that would improve the results.

I think the unions protect bad teachers too much, but to lay the blame on them for failed students is unfair. Let me expand on that a little:

Years ago I had a next door neighbor that bought a portable basketball hoop. Before I knew it, I had a yard full of neighborhood kids there. They played from the time they got home from school until past dark non-stop. A few times I had to call the cops to get them to stop. If I didn't, they would have played past 10:00 on a school night.

The kids ranged from ages 6 through 17 from what I witnessed. If they are out playing all hours of the night, HTF did they get their homework done? How did they get ample sleep to be attentive in school the next day? There was no possible way. The biggest question is why were their parent(s) not out looking for them to drag them home and make sure they were prepared for the next day in class?

So I stand by my point. The best teacher in the country can't teach a kid who's parents don't care about their education.

Studies show that the #1 factor in how well a kid does in life including being educated...........is not the school that he/she goes to but WHO THEIR DAMN PARENTS ARE. Show me a kid that can't handle basics like reading, writing, and math and I will show you its parents are failures as parents.

 

[Andylusion]

No, I don't lay the onus on teachers alone. But in any other context, would you pay more for less?

Just think about it logically, in any other context, any other at all, would you pay more money... for less product and service?

If you had two gas stations, and one was selling for $2/gallon, and the other was $3/gallon, would you go to the more expensive gas station? If you had two burger joints selling identical burgers, and one was $5, and the other $15, would you pay $15 for an identical burger to the $5 burger?

No.

There are a ton of aspect that are why public schools are garbage, that do not include just teachers... but teachers are actually very much part of the problem, because they support the unions that oppose any of the reforms that would improve the results.

I think the unions protect bad teachers too much, but to lay the blame on them for failed students is unfair. Let me expand on that a little:

Years ago I had a next door neighbor that bought a portable basketball hoop. Before I knew it, I had a yard full of neighborhood kids there. They played from the time they got home from school until past dark non-stop. A few times I had to call the cops to get them to stop. If I didn't, they would have played past 10:00 on a school night.

The kids ranged from ages 6 through 17 from what I witnessed. If they are out playing all hours of the night, HTF did they get their homework done? How did they get ample sleep to be attentive in school the next day? There was no possible way. The biggest question is why were their parent(s) not out looking for them to drag them home and make sure they were prepared for the next day in class?

So I stand by my point. The best teacher in the country can't teach a kid who's parents don't care about their education.

So all that you said is true.... however, there is an indirect relationship between teachers, and bad students.

Again, it has to do with the teachers unions refusing to allow changes in the school system.

Why do kids themselves have no feeling that they need to succeed?

I would suggest to you, that a massive part of the reason is because they have been told all their lives, that they are entitled to an education, and that they can't be denied this right.

The people who promote that claim, for their own benefit, are the teachers unions, at the support of teachers, because it benefits teachers.

You don't see this in Japan. In Japan, to even get into high school... not college... just high school... you have to pass rigorous entrance exams. And if you don't pass the exam, then you simply don't go to high school.

And the students know this. They know if they don't pass the exams, then their friends go off to high school, and they don't.

So the students have a huge incentive to succeed.

And the same is true of college in Japan. There is no remedial classes in colleges in Japan. If you don't know the material, you simply don't go to college, and again you wave goodbye to your friends, while they go off, and you stay at home.

There is no "No child left behind" philosophy in other countries. No they completely leave your butt behind.

In Finland, if you don't make the grade, they kick you out. You go to a drop out school where you sit with all the other drop outs, and learn to do manual labor jobs.

The kids have a massive incentive to not be the loser that never sees his friends again, because he failed too many tests, and now goes to the loser school for people who can't make the grade.

Thus, few of them are staying out all night playing basket ball.

That's my point to you. When you say it's bad students.. I say it's bad students because you have a bad system, and the biggest protectors of the system right now, are the Unions..... and the teachers support the Unions.

By the way... if you take those kids, and put them in a private school, they start acting like students from Japan. They start caring about their grades, because they don't want to be the loser guy left behind. Because in a private school, you don't keep up, you are out.

 

[Andylusion]

No, I don't lay the onus on teachers alone. But in any other context, would you pay more for less?

Just think about it logically, in any other context, any other at all, would you pay more money... for less product and service?

If you had two gas stations, and one was selling for $2/gallon, and the other was $3/gallon, would you go to the more expensive gas station? If you had two burger joints selling identical burgers, and one was $5, and the other $15, would you pay $15 for an identical burger to the $5 burger?

No.

There are a ton of aspect that are why public schools are garbage, that do not include just teachers... but teachers are actually very much part of the problem, because they support the unions that oppose any of the reforms that would improve the results.

I think the unions protect bad teachers too much, but to lay the blame on them for failed students is unfair. Let me expand on that a little:

Years ago I had a next door neighbor that bought a portable basketball hoop. Before I knew it, I had a yard full of neighborhood kids there. They played from the time they got home from school until past dark non-stop. A few times I had to call the cops to get them to stop. If I didn't, they would have played past 10:00 on a school night.

The kids ranged from ages 6 through 17 from what I witnessed. If they are out playing all hours of the night, HTF did they get their homework done? How did they get ample sleep to be attentive in school the next day? There was no possible way. The biggest question is why were their parent(s) not out looking for them to drag them home and make sure they were prepared for the next day in class?

So I stand by my point. The best teacher in the country can't teach a kid who's parents don't care about their education.

Studies show that the #1 factor in how well a kid does in life including being educated...........is not the school that he/she goes to but WHO THEIR DAMN PARENTS ARE. Show me a kid that can't handle basics like reading, writing, and math and I will show you its parents are failures as parents.

That's true. I do agree that there are some students that have such bad parenting, that there is absolutely nothing you can do. Agree.

That said.... given that's the case... the people who should be the biggest proponents of forcing out all bad students, should be the Teachers and the Teachers Unions.

But they are not. Why are the Unions, and the Teachers, fighting so hard to keep students that will refuse to learn, in the school system?

Money. Job security. Even though such students are nothing but a blight on the school system, and a complete waste of tax payer money, the Unions and the Teachers fight tooth and nail to keep those students in the schools.

All of those students should be expelled completely, and abandoned. When they decide they want to not be stupid anymore, and actually want to be educated, then they can pay for their GED themselves. Or they can join a private school, or a religious funded school.

So since the teachers, and the teachers unions are opposed to doing what is best for the rest of the students, and society.... then they are part of the problem. You can't blame the students or the parents, when they are not in charge of the system that allows this to continue. The people who are in the system, are the ones who should know better.

 

[Andylusion]

When I was in high school, I went to an upper middle class school, rated one of the best in the central Ohio area.

One day I was invited to tour a private school in the area. At the time I was in 11th Grade. I was around 8th graders at the private school. What I found was that those 8th graders were using the exact same study material that I was using in 11th grade.

A few years later I got to thinking about that, and started looking up the how much money did each school system spend on students.

I looked up three school systems. The private school, the middle class school I went to, and the inner city school.

The inner city spent more money per student by a fairly large margin.
The middle class school spent less, by about 25%.
And the school that spent the least amount of money per student, was the private school. They spent almost 50% of as much money on students, as the inner city school.

Then I looked up test results, and academic performance.

The results were the exact opposite. The school that spent the least amount of money on students, had the highest test results in nearly every academic area. The school that spent the most, had the worst possible results. The school that spent the least, had the best results.

Yet in spite of this, teachers at public schools are paid more, for significantly worse academic results.

And even then, teacher at privart schools are significantly happier with their jobs, than teachers at public schools. They are happier while earning less money, and achieving better educational results.

So why is that?

View attachment 454477

This is why.

So in my opinion public school teachers are in fact over paid for the results they get.

Ever lead a horse to water? Can you make them drink?

Well you can't when the horse things he's entitled to a drink for free, and that you can't kick him out of the drinking area, because people won't let the horse be expelled.

The bottom line is, the current system needs changed, and if teachers unions won't allow the changes needed to either lower the cost of education to the level of the education they are providing... then they need abolished completely.

I would privatize the entire education system.

My Mom and Dad were products of the Great Depression. They had little education back then. My aunts and uncles didn't graduate high school until after I came along and my Dad would celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow had he lived. What do you with the poor kids like me? I joined the military out of high school and now have a BA and and MEd thanks to the GI Bill. My "retirement" job is a defense contractor for the Army. Your plan just guarantees your car will get stripped or stolen by those you consider unworthy of a public education.

Those public educations suck so badly! My youngest and I both attended college on ROTC scholarships. She has a biology degree and is a Captain on the staff of the 101st Airborne. My son was military, as was my daughter-in-law. My oldest works in an optical shop and cares for my grandson who has cancer. She did run a commercial finance company office.My son-in-law is a crash crewman with the Air National Guard and a professional firefighter full time at a military base and part time for the major city as a substitute. Every one of those graduated from public schools. My oldest daughter, son, and daughter-in-law all attended the high school where I taught. Every one of those graduated from public schools.

Let's hear your plan, because all I see is bitching and moaning.

I've already given my plan. Privatize the entire system.

My car has already been stripped and stolen by people who DID get a public education. My house was ransacked by people who got a public education. 60% of all prison inmates have a high school public education, and 50% have college education at some level.

And even the 40% who don't have a high school education, that's because they stopped going, not because I deemed them unworthy. They all had access to your precious utopian free public education AND WERE STILL CRIMINALS.

So spare me your false virtue signalling as if your theory works. It does not. The proof is all around us, that your system does not work. So with all due respect.... all due respect.... STUFF IT.

 

[pknopp]

If banks and businesses didn't have to pay the money back, I don't see why all should not be held to the same standard.

Because, the taxpayers are tired of picking up the tab for your lazy ass non-productive asses. Just a thought. You take out the loan, you pay it back dead beat.

LOL, when unable to address my point make it about me even though it has nothing to do with me. LOL

 

[JoeB131]

Train wreck with millions of barrels will do the same. There are thousands of miles of lines already. They do well.

Those lines don't go over a major aquifer like the Keystone one does.

And, no, a rail car will not pollute nearly as much as a pipeline rupture would.

 

[JoeB131]

And you are right, Gender Studies, just an example I came up with off the top of my head, is not even on this list.

So thanks for backing up my point about wasting $50k on each of those majors.

Except nobody is. they are wasting 50K on degrees and there aren't the jobs there to pay them off. That's the problem.

The real problem is that we have too many jobs that require a bachelor's degree for jobs that don't really need one. For instance, my background is in purchasing and procurement. 30 years ago, you really didn't need a degree to get into that field. Today, you do, and I know a lot of buyers who won't get considered for jobs because the applicant tracking software they use to sort resumes won't even consider them.

First of all, nothing is "free". That being said, I am open to government-funded or government-assisted college and technical education. However, there needs to be limits and accountability on the recipients receiving funds for college. The current system where students and their parents had access to large debt funding in the name of college education got us into this mess.

No, stupid, what got us into this mess is big business demanding people have bachelor degrees for anything that pays above minimum wage.

A lot of people aren't cut out for college and are kind of wasting their time going, but the system INSISTS they get a degree.

then you have a scholarship system where the people who are paying are also paying for the Athletes. This was one of the things that pissed me off when I went to college. I didn't have to pay tuition, thanks to the Army, but I did have to pay for fees. The biggest ticket item on the fees? Our wonderful Title IX required athletics programs where we were paying the tuition for mediocre student athletes.

The student should be pursuing an education that will yield skills to be met in the job market so that shortages can be addressed and the student can pay back the loan in a reasonable time frame or otherwise eliminate the need for irresponsible bailouts. Maybe also require the student to serve 5 years in the public sector in areas where skills sets are needed such as IT or healthcare.

Or maybe we should get rid of the requirement that you need a bachelor's degree for an entry level purchasing job.

 

[Claudette]

If banks and businesses didn't have to pay the money back, I don't see why all should not be held to the same standard.

he banks made bad loans they should be the only ones on the hook for the money

Banks have nothing to do with it. The loans are from the US government.

Stafford Loans are federal loans made by the government, meaning you're borrowing directly from the U.S. Department of Education. That's who you'll repay when it's time, too. Today, 92% of all student loans are made by the federal government.

www.salliemae.com

Yup which means we tax payers will be footing the bill. Bush the elder did away with Fed college loans cause they weren't being paid back. Clinton reinstituted them and here we are.

If you take the loan then YOU should be the one paying it back. Not the tax payers. More bullshit brought to you by a pack of imbeciles.

 

[jknowgood]

Train wreck with millions of barrels will do the same. There are thousands of miles of lines already. They do well.

Those lines don't go over a major aquifer like the Keystone one does.

And, no, a rail car will not pollute nearly as much as a pipeline rupture would.

Yeah right.

 

[LeftofLeft]

And you are right, Gender Studies, just an example I came up with off the top of my head, is not even on this list.

So thanks for backing up my point about wasting $50k on each of those majors.

Except nobody is. they are wasting 50K on degrees and there aren't the jobs there to pay them off. That's the problem.

The real problem is that we have too many jobs that require a bachelor's degree for jobs that don't really need one. For instance, my background is in purchasing and procurement. 30 years ago, you really didn't need a degree to get into that field. Today, you do, and I know a lot of buyers who won't get considered for jobs because the applicant tracking software they use to sort resumes won't even consider them.

First of all, nothing is "free". That being said, I am open to government-funded or government-assisted college and technical education. However, there needs to be limits and accountability on the recipients receiving funds for college. The current system where students and their parents had access to large debt funding in the name of college education got us into this mess.

No, stupid, what got us into this mess is big business demanding people have bachelor degrees for anything that pays above minimum wage.

A lot of people aren't cut out for college and are kind of wasting their time going, but the system INSISTS they get a degree.

then you have a scholarship system where the people who are paying are also paying for the Athletes. This was one of the things that pissed me off when I went to college. I didn't have to pay tuition, thanks to the Army, but I did have to pay for fees. The biggest ticket item on the fees? Our wonderful Title IX required athletics programs where we were paying the tuition for mediocre student athletes.

The student should be pursuing an education that will yield skills to be met in the job market so that shortages can be addressed and the student can pay back the loan in a reasonable time frame or otherwise eliminate the need for irresponsible bailouts. Maybe also require the student to serve 5 years in the public sector in areas where skills sets are needed such as IT or healthcare.

Or maybe we should get rid of the requirement that you need a bachelor's degree for an entry level purchasing job.

Bachelors Degrees and Certificates are not a problem provided they are in an area for which there is market demand for those skills sets. What is so stupid about that?