Why teachers need more pay

[initforme]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

 

[anotherlife]

this list is not all that much different from what other e ecutives or workers have. In most jobs, you do need to prepare for your presentations, do your customer support work outside meting hours, and do these with only 2 weeks of vacation per year. So teachers are still wise guys who pulled it over everyone else. Very clever though. Hehehe.

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

In 1975, more than one-fifth (22%) of college students majored in education. In 2015, it was just over 10%. Students are not turning away from education as a major because they no longer love kids or teaching. They don't major in education because there are a lot more opportunities and much higher pay in other fields. I taught college course for about 5 years and I can tell you the overriding factors in selecting a major was work after graduation. Can I get a job in the field? How much can I make? What's the advancement opportunities? Better salaries, better working conditions, and better opportunities attract better people. Maybe you think we really don't need our best people in the classroom, just people that love kids.

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

And parents who don’t want to or can’t afford to don’t send their kids to school. Or have a public option but you have to drive your kids to it. No more busses. And teachers can throw your kid out if you aren’t trying.

Maybe this will cut down on poverty birth rates.

Public schools were a great idea in the 1900s

In the 1900s may be but not in the 21st century. And even in the 1900s, public schools were established only for indoctrination.

Those parents who can't pay will find a school that is less expensive. But at least they will not pay for endless free loaders posing as educators instead of schooling their children.

Also, now that the student loan bubble is about to burst, America needs a new loan market, and nothing is better than the pupil loan market after the student loan market.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy is pulling shit out of his ass and expecting those who don’t know better to believe him. His problem is that some people know better.

lol.... what have I ever done to you, other than agree with most of your posts? Your conduct toward me this thread is un-explainable. Did I run over your cat or something?

You are being dishonest. I don’t care for that.

Why would you say that? I don't understand you.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that if you are the best teacher in the world, you can force kids that are out of control, to learn?

Thanks for admitting you are just making shit up to fit your preconceived notions.

Well... you have the right to be wrong. Good talking to you.

I have the right to know better.

Both of my parents were public school teachers. Both got awards for their work. Both got rehired as teachers after they retired. My father was a university professor. Both had their masters, and my father had a Ph.D.

Both of my parents agree with what I have written, and I have heard the same from other teachers.

I stand by my words as both truthful and accurate.

Do you honestly not realize how obvious it is that you are lying?

lol....
Why would I lie? If everything I said wasn't true, what would be the point of saying it?
I don't get it. What do I stand to even gain from lying to you?

What exactly do you think I lied about?

 

[Andylusion]

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

In 1975, more than one-fifth (22%) of college students majored in education. In 2015, it was just over 10%. Students are not turning away from education as a major because they no longer love kids or teaching. They don't major in education because there are a lot more opportunities and much higher pay in other fields. I taught college course for about 5 years and I can tell you the overriding factors in selecting a major was work after graduation. Can I get a job in the field? How much can I make? What's the advancement opportunities? Better salaries, better working conditions, and better opportunities attract better people. Maybe you think we really don't need our best people in the classroom, just people that love kids.

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

 

[anotherlife]

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

In 1975, more than one-fifth (22%) of college students majored in education. In 2015, it was just over 10%. Students are not turning away from education as a major because they no longer love kids or teaching. They don't major in education because there are a lot more opportunities and much higher pay in other fields. I taught college course for about 5 years and I can tell you the overriding factors in selecting a major was work after graduation. Can I get a job in the field? How much can I make? What's the advancement opportunities? Better salaries, better working conditions, and better opportunities attract better people. Maybe you think we really don't need our best people in the classroom, just people that love kids.

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

 

[Andylusion]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

But the two things are connected. Part of the reason why kids do take any responsibility, is because we have an entitlement culture. Part of the reason we have an entitlement culture is because teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

Additionally, one of the reason children have a non-caring attitude is that their grades in middle and high school, have little direct impact.

For example, in Japan, or Finland, what middle school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in elementary school. What high school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in middle school. What college you went to was determined by the grades you got in high school.

When I was in high school, there was a guy that spent his entire junior year, trying to get the lowest passing grade possible. He would sit there and calculate exactly how many questions he had to miss, in order to get that 61% passing score.

Now for him, it didn't matter. He was smart, and educated, and ended up a lawyer.

But the point is, you have a system of "no child left behind" where people have no incentive to succeed. They don't realize how devastating it is 15 years down the line, when they can't do anything with their life.

Now I list all of this, because it is true that students are part of the problem, but they are reacting to the incentives created by the system.

And the fact is... the teachers, and teachers unions are defending this system.

 

[Andylusion]

In 1975, more than one-fifth (22%) of college students majored in education. In 2015, it was just over 10%. Students are not turning away from education as a major because they no longer love kids or teaching. They don't major in education because there are a lot more opportunities and much higher pay in other fields. I taught college course for about 5 years and I can tell you the overriding factors in selecting a major was work after graduation. Can I get a job in the field? How much can I make? What's the advancement opportunities? Better salaries, better working conditions, and better opportunities attract better people. Maybe you think we really don't need our best people in the classroom, just people that love kids.

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

 

[sealybobo]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

But the two things are connected. Part of the reason why kids do take any responsibility, is because we have an entitlement culture. Part of the reason we have an entitlement culture is because teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

Additionally, one of the reason children have a non-caring attitude is that their grades in middle and high school, have little direct impact.

For example, in Japan, or Finland, what middle school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in elementary school. What high school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in middle school. What college you went to was determined by the grades you got in high school.

When I was in high school, there was a guy that spent his entire junior year, trying to get the lowest passing grade possible. He would sit there and calculate exactly how many questions he had to miss, in order to get that 61% passing score.

Now for him, it didn't matter. He was smart, and educated, and ended up a lawyer.

But the point is, you have a system of "no child left behind" where people have no incentive to succeed. They don't realize how devastating it is 15 years down the line, when they can't do anything with their life.

Now I list all of this, because it is true that students are part of the problem, but they are reacting to the incentives created by the system.

And the fact is... the teachers, and teachers unions are defending this system.

Now I’m going to defend the teachers for a minute.

You say people have no incentive to succeed? Why not? Aren’t there good jobs out there?

And you said people don’t realize how devastating it is 15 years down.... who doesn’t realize it? Then doesn’t that make them a dumb fuck? My parents were immigrants and they knew the importance of a good education. And they cracked down on us if we weren’t doing our homework.

Anyone today who doesn’t know it’s important that their kid get a good education is dumb and probably shouldn’t have them.

But, it’s not the dumb parents job to teach their kids. It’s the teachers job. And if they can’t do it maybe they shouldn’t be teaching.

But I like the idea of separating the smart kids from the dummies. I would have went to the dummy school

 

[sealybobo]

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

Is it really that important we educate the masses? So important we need a education department? I think we could abolish the dept of education and things would be fine.

States can run state schools and state taxes would pay for public schools.

People who have kids need to factor in education.

You know what would be great? If I had kids, I start work at 8 and leave at 5pm. I would love a school where you can drop your kid off at 7:30am and pick them up at 5:30. That would be perfect. How much would that cost a month?

That’s what parents of the future need to do. Pay for their own kids schooling.

 

[Unkotare]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

...teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

....

The Supreme Court says so.

 

[anotherlife]

So I think we should ask Trump, to outlaw the usage of property taxes for schools. Then schools will have to charge families what they are actually worth, and the teacher unions would disappear as quickly as the corporate sector unions disappeared in the steel industry. Maybe we will even have new schools, and the inner city schools would close where they are not needed to begin with.

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

I think you have convinced me. Centralization is always bad, I must agree. What I am trying to solve is the problem of the dependency of property prices on schools. Teacher unions can shut down public schools easily and drive property investments down, which is the weapon they use. The reason why public sector unions flourish when every other union fails is that they have your taxes in their pockets. How can we stop them then? They will play one school district against the other.

 

[sealybobo]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

...teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

....

The Supreme Court says so.

I could see the new conservative Supreme Court rethinking that

 

[Unkotare]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

...teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

....

The Supreme Court says so.

I could see the new conservative Supreme Court rethinking that

Nope

 

[anotherlife]

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

Is it really that important we educate the masses? So important we need a education department? I think we could abolish the dept of education and things would be fine.

States can run state schools and state taxes would pay for public schools.

People who have kids need to factor in education.

You know what would be great? If I had kids, I start work at 8 and leave at 5pm. I would love a school where you can drop your kid off at 7:30am and pick them up at 5:30. That would be perfect. How much would that cost a month?

That’s what parents of the future need to do. Pay for their own kids schooling.

Yes. Transitioning to such a practical system is very complicated though I think.

Currently, public schools have your money anyways through property taxes and then they make more money by outsourcing afternoon child care. Even if the same classroom is used. A form of out of control bonanza for them.

To reign it in would be a huge fight, and the teacher unions will do everything to stop it, starting with destroying your property price.

Any idea how to pull it off?

 

[anotherlife]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

...teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

....

The Supreme Court says so.

I could see the new conservative Supreme Court rethinking that

Charter schools was a republican idea to break the hegemony of teacher unions. The teacher unions won that one.

 

[anotherlife]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

But the two things are connected. Part of the reason why kids do take any responsibility, is because we have an entitlement culture. Part of the reason we have an entitlement culture is because teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

Additionally, one of the reason children have a non-caring attitude is that their grades in middle and high school, have little direct impact.

For example, in Japan, or Finland, what middle school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in elementary school. What high school you go to, is largely determined by the grades you get in middle school. What college you went to was determined by the grades you got in high school.

When I was in high school, there was a guy that spent his entire junior year, trying to get the lowest passing grade possible. He would sit there and calculate exactly how many questions he had to miss, in order to get that 61% passing score.

Now for him, it didn't matter. He was smart, and educated, and ended up a lawyer.

But the point is, you have a system of "no child left behind" where people have no incentive to succeed. They don't realize how devastating it is 15 years down the line, when they can't do anything with their life.

Now I list all of this, because it is true that students are part of the problem, but they are reacting to the incentives created by the system.

And the fact is... the teachers, and teachers unions are defending this system.

Now I’m going to defend the teachers for a minute.

You say people have no incentive to succeed? Why not? Aren’t there good jobs out there?

And you said people don’t realize how devastating it is 15 years down.... who doesn’t realize it? Then doesn’t that make them a dumb fuck? My parents were immigrants and they knew the importance of a good education. And they cracked down on us if we weren’t doing our homework.

Anyone today who doesn’t know it’s important that their kid get a good education is dumb and probably shouldn’t have them.

But, it’s not the dumb parents job to teach their kids. It’s the teachers job. And if they can’t do it maybe they shouldn’t be teaching.

But I like the idea of separating the smart kids from the dummies. I would have went to the dummy school

No. Learning everything in the French language would have sent you to the dummy school. I hate them.

 

[sealybobo]

No. States rights. The Feds have no business dictating how local schools work.

It should be the people that determine they want a better system, and change how the schools work in their communities.

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

I think you have convinced me. Centralization is always bad, I must agree. What I am trying to solve is the problem of the dependency of property prices on schools. Teacher unions can shut down public schools easily and drive property investments down, which is the weapon they use. The reason why public sector unions flourish when every other union fails is that they have your taxes in their pockets. How can we stop them then? They will play one school district against the other.

People move to cities with good schools. Good schools is a reason people move.

I’d like to have school free cities for people who don’t have kids.

 

[anotherlife]

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

I think you have convinced me. Centralization is always bad, I must agree. What I am trying to solve is the problem of the dependency of property prices on schools. Teacher unions can shut down public schools easily and drive property investments down, which is the weapon they use. The reason why public sector unions flourish when every other union fails is that they have your taxes in their pockets. How can we stop them then? They will play one school district against the other.

People move to cities with good schools. Good schools is a reason people move.

I’d like to have school free cities for people who don’t have kids.

I think they are called retirement communities, but currently they too pay school taxes.

 

[Unkotare]

No, because schools and property prices compete on the national level. So this must be done like an anti monopoly law, if we want any hope of stopping teacher unions, and throwing endless hard earned cash away.

Yeah, I disagree. It should be a local issue. If California wants to destroy themselves with bad taxes, and school, that should be their choice. We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship of the Federal government. Or at least we should.

Then nothing will happen. If one city stops the drainage of taxes into its schools, then those Union teachers will simply laugh and move down to the next city, and the first city will not only lose its schools but also half of its property valuations. This can only be done therefore centrally on a national basis.

Terrible idea. Every time you centralize power in the hands of the Federal government, they screw it up.

I would rather leave it to the local level. Better to stay in a bad system, than give it to the Federal government. You put it in the hands of the feds, and the special interest money will pour into congress, to sway control of education in whatever way they want. Bad idea. Terrible idea.

I think you have convinced me. Centralization is always bad, I must agree. What I am trying to solve is the problem of the dependency of property prices on schools. Teacher unions can shut down public schools easily and drive property investments down, which is the weapon they use. The reason why public sector unions flourish when every other union fails is that they have your taxes in their pockets. How can we stop them then? They will play one school district against the other.

...

I’d like to have school free cities for people who don’t have kids.

Your dream of homosexual segregation isn’t very practical, Giovanni.

 

[Andylusion]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

...teachers and teachers unions, are real quick to say that people are entitled to an education.

....

The Supreme Court says so.

Yeah, well they are wrong.

But that doesn't matter. Let's even pretend that it is a right. The moment you make something a 'right', you take the onus of responsibility off the individual. That's why you see kids and parents, that don't think they have to do anything to get an education.... and they don't. You see kids in school, that make no effort to learn anything, and parents that don't believe they have to make their children learn.... because after all... its societies job to educate. Not mine. They need to do their duty.

When you take the responsibility of education off the people, and put it on "society", then you end up with the education system we have.

Again, you look at Finland, students that don't make the grades, are kicked out. They can go to a trade school, and learn to fit pipes together if they please, but they don't burden teachers and their peers, with students who don't put in the effort.

So what happened to their "entitlement" to education? I guess they lost it.

Of course the irony is, because you can lose your 'right' to an education, the results are that few students fail out. The students knowing they can lose their education, end up trying to keep it.