Is Donald Trump More Valuable to Democrats IN Office?

Yeah, it's nuts, and we throw way more money at education than just about anyone!

Here's the thing, though, your message essentially says if we change, things will get worse. Will it get better continuing the same way?

There's a couple things I've noticed. First is the monopoly - it's a joke to think it can perform to potential without competition. Competition is necessary to make people work for market share. Public schools are currently a monopoly which we are all forced to fund at the barrel of a gun. Second is the lack of control/discipline. Visit a few classrooms across the spectrum and it's mindboggling to see the lack of respect so many students show toward their teachers and fellow classmates. Third is why people get into teaching. In ages past, people chose teaching because that's what they wanted to do. Only in recent decades have people sought the profession for the money. That's given us a cadre of teachers who are no good at instilling a desire to learn in children but who just look forward to class being over so they can go out and spend some of that money they signed up for.

So, "home schooling, charter, and voucher..."

I'm guessing you don't know any home schooled folks since you indicate they are inferiorly educated. I know about fifty, and guess what, they're way more thoroughly educated than most public school kids. More importantly, they've been instilled with a love for learning so their whole lives they're seeking new knowledge and experiences. Not those who are content with their mindless jobs and come home to the sofa, a parade of mindless sports games and tv shows, and a cold twelve pack of Bud lights.

Charter schools take on various forms. From what little I've seen, it's just a variant of public school, same rules/regs/mindless one-size-fits-all policies and standards. I can't address those without first doing a bunch of research, which I don't feel like taking the time for.

The voucher idea has been floating around for decades now. The idea came to light once public schools could no longer discipline children to keep them in line when they got disruptive, and teaching methods regressed from a competitive approach to a dumbed-down, teach-to-the-lowest-denominator approach. Parents responded with appaul when their kid who was reading children's books and adding and subtracting single digit numbers at age three was put in front of a box with various shaped pieces and holes in kindergarten at age five! It would be second grade before the class would be reading at the level their kid was at age three! Needless to say, that's a lot of wasted time and brainpower for kids at the age they're so receptive - plus it sours them on school and on learning in general. Add the taunting of the dumber kids for being 'smart' and you've got a recipe for mediocrity at best. Violence at worst.
So parents who could afford to sent their children to private schools. But what about the parents who are smart enough to know they're getting ripped off and their kids shortchanged, but couldn't quite muster the resources to fund private schooling? The idea of the 'voucher' is that they would be able to take that portion of the publicly collected school budget from the public school and apply it to a private school of their choice. That way their kid could get the education s/he deserves.
Public educators hate the voucher idea because first it eliminates their control over these kids, and second, it puts them in a position of having to compete for students, meaning they'd have to work harder to earn the patronage of the students (via their parents).
If the students are to be high-performing, then the teachers must be high-performing first.

"The best predictor of low academic performance is poverty—not bad teachers."
Yeah. You can make the correlation. But it doesn't show causation. Think about it: the same factors leading to poverty also lead to low performance in everything, including academics. It's a mindset, from DNA to environmental factors, not the poverty itself. The poverty is just another result alongside low academic performance and everything else it fosters. But when people want to make a political argument, they make correlations like this to sidetrack people and lead them astray. It works! It's easy to fall victim.

When a person is around a bunch of non-performers, they are shamed into non-performing; likewise around high performers. We become who we surround ourselves with.

 

Time will tell

 

How so? There have been private and parochial schools for as long as I can remember.

Given the fact that teacher pay is so low in comparison with other professions and trades, I find this hard to believe.

I wonder how you've come to know about fifty home schooled kids. The ones I know are either evangelical Christians who are trying to protect their kids from secular influence (in which case, it's debatable whether they're really being given an education) or are from affluent families in which one parent has the time and educational resources to provide full-time attention. I think I'd agree with Meagain that home schooling can have the disadvantages of indoctrination, restricted social opportunities (unless parents go out of their way to make sure these are provided, and insulation from diversity. These can have major, and I think adverse, consequences for a society.

 

Paying for sex is against the law in most states?

 

I'll have to decline further discussion because you're responding as if I've said things I didn't. A discussion is nonproductive if we can't keep track of what's said and counter accordingly. I'd like to counter but I'm afraid it would just be a repeat misunderstanding, and it will take much time to attempt to correct those misunderstandings also.

To me you sound like you're trying to protect the status quo and would use whatever means to advance that, rather than put any effort toward learning how things could be improved. But that's just my speculation; I won't pretend to understand your motivation.

 

His motivation is the betterment of this country by educating the likes of you.

 

You should maybe take a peek at the stats, then.

From my findings over the years: A starting teacher makes about the average wage of all workers young to old. By retirement, the teacher is making roughly 50% more than the average wage for the time. (Average wage changes year to year) And the retirement package is worth a bundle!

About twenty years ago, a friend of mine was making 52k teaching public school. That's damn good especially considering the investment to get there, the workload, working conditions, big benefits while working, sweet retirement package, etc. And that was 20 years ago! Dood!

I see people defending teacher pay who are making way less themselves. But it's really not all that surprising given how sparse the love of learning has become.

 

Will be happy to revisit if you do first, and be forthright. No assumptions.

 

If you're comparing teachers with "average wage of all workers young and old", you're comparing apples and oranges. First of all, there is wide variation among states and school districts in teacher pay. The red states like Oklahoma tend to be at the bottom. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average teacher salary in Oklahoma is $42,460, which is considered the lowest in the country. Mississippi is considered the second lowest with the average salary of $43,950. The highest paying states are Alaska, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California--as well they should be, considering the cost of living in those states. Second, comparing teachers with McDonalds burger flippers and ditch diggers is meaningless. Teachers are college educated professionals. Third, $52K is not damned good for a college educated professional. You get what you pay for. Fourth, your figures seem questionable. Where did you get your "findings over the years". The bottom line is how much we're willing to pay to give the kids a good education. Your idea that the less we pay, the better it will be is fantasy.

 

Trump is very dangerous and a symptom of the political climate in America right now, but he might be the catalyst that causes the destruction of the GOP as we have known it over the last two decades!

 

We can only hope, wait and see--and vote!

 

It is kinda like when the Allies could've killed Hitler....and they were like "Meh".....the guys an idiot.....they deserve him"!! LMAO!!

 

Yeah... This uptick in the economy needs to be stifled - so dangerous - let's get some leftists in there to get unemployment and prices up!

(Palm to face)

 

Memories are short... I remember well the pundits proclaiming that if Trump
wins the election, the stock market will take a dive. And the resultant concern.

And the very next day after he won it ...


I guess one could assert that it was the result of Obama era freedom stifling regulatory policies suddenly creating the new hope for lurching forward. It's not like sillier things haven't been claimed, or even believed.

Compare unemployment figures anytime during the previous administration to today's