Is Donald Trump More Valuable to Democrats IN Office?

Trump inherited a strong economy that started in 2009, not 2017. The growth of the economy has been steady for 9 years, the third longest period of growth in history. This leads to job growth as business thrives in a steady economy.
To say Trump is solely responsible for the current state of employment is disingenuous.

 

So let's look at this.

Here is your statement:

Premise #1.
In the past teachers chose teaching because that's what they wanted to do; even though the pay was poor.
Premise #2.
Recently the pay has improved: leading to people entering the profession who are only in it for high pay.
Conclusion
3. This has led to teachers who can't teach as all they want is money and have no love of teaching.

Disregarding the fact that you haven't proven either premise you then go on to seemingly deny that teachers can't have a love of teaching and be well paid.

On to pay scales.

First, I always find it interesting that money is the answer for better corporate executives, doctors, military defense, research, etc. but never for education. Why is that?
Second, learning is work. Sometimes the work is fun, sometimes not.
Are you advocating making teachers entertainers? Do students bear any responsibility for learning? Should we grease the way for them, making all education fun and easy?

​

 

I went to public school, and parochial school for a few summers. My wife went to public school and boarded at a parochial school for a while. Some teachers were better than others, as in every profession, trade, or any other type of job. That's the point.
I also taught in public schools for over 34 years, the same applied. I also saw a few bad teachers dismissed.
What's your point?

As to my conclusion, am I wrong in deducing that you don't think well paid teachers can love the teaching profession?
How am I not focusing?
Here's your statement again:

I'll go through it again and please, point out my error.
1. In ages past, people chose teaching because that's what they wanted to do.
Okay, so what does that mean?
Are you saying that today people don't go into teaching because they want to? I don't want to put words into your mouth so please clarify.
2. Only in recent decades have people sought the profession for the money. Again, what does this mean? Do you think teachers, in general, worked for free in the past or just for less money? If so what does that mean in relation to raising teacher pay?Please clarify.
3. 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. What is the word That's addressing? I assume sentence number two. Now in sentence number two you state that That's led to teachers who aren't any good at instilling a desire to learn in children (a prime requisite for being a good teacher by your own standard, "That is why I contend that a "good teacher" is one who instills a love for learning in children..."), and further these teachers just look forward to class being over so they can spend some of their money.
So what are you saying?

I must be having trouble focusing...are you saying higher pay for teachers leads to poorer teachers or not?

On to your solution for getting better teachers, which is what I assume you mean by competition.

You're talking about merit pay. Please explain how this would work.
If my students get more A grades than yours, I get more pay?
If my students get higher grades than yours on standardized tests, I get more pay?
If more of my students graduate than yours, I get more pay?
Is that the idea?
How about if more of my students develop a love for learning than yours, I get more pay? How are you going to measure that?

Here are some reasons it won't work:
In order to get more pay teachers will teach to the test. This stifles teacher creativity, limits the curriculum and the satisfaction of student curiosity, thus defeating the goal of instilling "a desire to learn."
Standardized tests don't really measure a student's desire to learn. Standardized tests only measure learning by the student in a narrow range, they don't measure teaching effectiveness per se or the student's desire to learn. Poor standardized tests may only measure short range memorization.
It promotes teacher and administrating "cheating". To get more good grades, pass tests, or increase graduation rates, and thus higher pay, standards are lowered, answers are leaked, weak students culled, or numbers juggled.
Students aren't products. Students aren't widgets, machinery, or sales figures. Results of a "good" education are often not apparent for years.
Teaching involves factors outside of the teacher's control. Students are not all of the same quality, they do not have the same motivations, needs, home life, health issues, or emotional development. Students aren't pieces of steel whereas I can order good quality steel every time to make my product, I have to take what comes down the line...by law. Pot metal or weak steel can't be refused.
Teaching assignments are not equal. One teacher may get a class of lower performing students while another gets an advanced placement class. A class may contain non English speaking students or those with special needs while another does not.
It promotes cronyism. Get on a principal's or a school board member's bad side and you get a low performing class, and less pay. Become a winning football coach and get a class full of academic achievers and more pay.
It divides the teaching staff. Teachers of lower performing students may suffer moral problems if the lower performance is not due to them or their teaching methods.

I don't want your eyes to roll around too much, so please address my concerns and point out my errors.

​

 

I thought this was pertinent.
Time​