nc scewing teachers again....

[JCline0429]

I don't see how home schooling could work. First of all, how many parents can stay home all day and still work? Secondly, how can a parent be able to teach the variety of subjects that are offered in a typical high schoo?. Can a parent know how to teach Advanced English, two foreign language courses, Chemistry/ Physics/Biology (with the lab work), etc. as well as give the EOC tests?

[JCline0429]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

[JCline0429]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

Most of the arguments on this thread are about the failure or public education because all students are treated as if they learn the same way, have the same ability, same background, etc.- basically, one-size-fits-all education. So wouldn't having different schools who had different specialties, who were judged reasonably based on appropriate criteria, be more effective? Would this not provide for the most opportunity for all students?

How would the system provide differing transportation to those schools? Where would the specialized instructional staff come from? It is difficult to find certain teachers now. There is a huge shortage of math and science teachers as well as EC teachers as it is.

[appst89]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

[JCline0429]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

Perhaps my definiton of "apathy" is different. I consider "apathy" as not caring as in those citizens who do not vote at all.

[bcoach]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

You did.

[appst89]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

Perhaps my definiton of "apathy" is different. I consider "apathy" as not caring as in those citizens who do not vote at all.

ap·a·thy (p-th)
n.
1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.

If people do not care enough to be informed then they are apathetic. I'd rather they didn't vote.

[bcoach]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.

Where did bcoach mention voter apathy? It is right, but I didn't see it in his post.

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

Perhaps my definiton of "apathy" is different. I consider "apathy" as not caring as in those citizens who do not vote at all.

Jcline is this argument just for the sake of argument? or do you have a point?

[Maddog1956]

Really? Is this a serious question?

He mentioned in several posts that we have elected people who only say what the electorate wants to hear; that are overstepping their bounds; that are not representing their constituents. He alluded to the fact that the voters are responsible for allowing those people to occupy an elected office. The inference I drew seemed pretty clear. I guess Bcoach will have to say whether I interpreted his intentions clearly or not.

My point is that people blame the government that they elected for doing in the most part what they said they were going to do. Yes I know that everyone didn't vote for every politician and every politician doesn't do 100% of what they said, but blaming government is like blaming the coach for not letting you play because you didn't make it to the game (or blaming the other team for your team losing the game). Politicians only get elected by doing "most" of what people think they want them to do, or because people don't care. People seem to forget that government is this all inclusive organization that you voted mostly for if you voted. I can't believe that there is anyone in NC that can't say that they voted for someone that is in office either on a national or state level. And when you talk about education both are responsible for part of the problem.

And maybe the weakest argument I hear is that "government is too big", would they really be happy if we eliminated congress and all state governments and the country was run by one guy? Or is it the departments they want eliminated, military, education, customs, FAA.

Not saying it there isn't room for improvements, but when we point at government, let's face it and say it's our fault.

[HeffnerIV]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

Most of the arguments on this thread are about the failure or public education because all students are treated as if they learn the same way, have the same ability, same background, etc.- basically, one-size-fits-all education. So wouldn't having different schools who had different specialties, who were judged reasonably based on appropriate criteria, be more effective? Would this not provide for the most opportunity for all students?

How would the system provide differing transportation to those schools? Where would the specialized instructional staff come from? It is difficult to find certain teachers now. There is a huge shortage of math and science teachers as well as EC teachers as it is.

I know that transportation can be an issue, but do we ask anything out of parents? Can we at least ask them to get their kid to school? City bus, carpool with the neighbor, walk if necessary, bike, etc.

I know it's hard to find certain teachers now, but let's fix the system and provide them with some choices too. Maybe that will give the incentive for more to enter the profession.

[AppState89]

BTW. How are you evaluated? Do you move up the salary scale based on number of years served or do you have an evaluation every year that determines your salary? You are a state employee, aren't you?

I assume this was to me. I already answered all that in response to your question earlier. I am a state employee and I hate the way they do evaluations. It kills all incentive to excel and makes it all but impossible to get rid of those who do nothing, and we all get paid the same, based on the job description.

Then that process should be ended, too. I assume you would agree.. BTW, I didn't see your response to my question concerneing your position with the state.

My reply: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&start=40#p27708

Yes, it absolutely should be ended. People should be paid for how they perform not for how long they have occupied a chair.

I know your feeling all too well. I've been a state employee for 23 years. All 23 of my evaluations have been very good (VG) or outstanding (O) and it's gotten me $0.00 raise. I did some math a little over a year ago and I would be making about $20,000 more a year now if I got the same raises as the teachers in NC got over my 23 years. Sad since I'm a probation officer that is a Violent Crime Task Force (PSN) and gang officer. The very sad thing is I'll retire with 30 years of service and will never reach $50,000. Pretty bad considering I could get killed any day by these people I supervise. BUT, I'm still h"APPY" I have a job and can help protect the citizens of NC.

[GoApps70]

Maybe the real answer is to go back to the way things were 40 years ago and earlier. You know the education that produced the people who put us on the moon, invented the computer and on and on. A time when we realized that not all people have the same capabilities. A time when you were NOT a failure if you didn't go to collage. A time when a teacher was not deemed less than stellar if one of their students " didn't make the grade". A time when you were proud to build cars or lay brick. A time when the teacher could devote time to all the students fairly equally and not have to give 30% of their time to one student who had this need or that. We are trying to be all things to all people and that NEVER works. I think the educational system and most of all politicians spent way too much time trying to fix something that was not broke. Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. It has been stated that 90% of teachers do a very good job. I agree with that and would not argue against that figure being a little higher. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

Agree with you on 99% of that. Would like to see good statewide tests for teachers though. There are some pathetic teachers out there. My youngest just graduated from Appalachian, yet when he was in middle school some of the notes the teachers sent home looked like they had not made it past the fifth grade. Weed those out, go back to the basics, and tell politicians to keep their noses out of the classrooms.

[kiddbrewer]

Agree with you on 99% of that. Would like to see good statewide tests for teachers though. There are some pathetic teachers out there. My youngest just graduated from Appalachian, yet when he was in middle school some of the notes the teachers sent home looked like they had not made it past the fifth grade. Weed those out, go back to the basics, and tell politicians to keep their noses out of the classrooms.

I agree. I have worked with several bad teachers. But with the low pay, it's hard to get quality people in the classrooms. If you do get the quality, it's hard to keep them, especially now, if the state passes the bill that removes the stipend for a Master's.

[goapps93]

Agree with you on 99% of that. Would like to see good statewide tests for teachers though. There are some pathetic teachers out there. My youngest just graduated from Appalachian, yet when he was in middle school some of the notes the teachers sent home looked like they had not made it past the fifth grade. Weed those out, go back to the basics, and tell politicians to keep their noses out of the classrooms.

I agree. I have worked with several bad teachers. But with the low pay, it's hard to get quality people in the classrooms. If you do get the quality, it's hard to keep them, especially now, if the state passes the bill that removes the stipend for a Master's.

A starting salary of $30,800.00 for a teacher fresh out of college is not bad, especially since it's a 10 month job. If teachers worked 12 months like the rest of us then that would equal $36,160.00. Not too bad. There are a lot of State Employees with college degrees not making that much, especially right out of college, who also do important jobs. Though I realize it has not been funded well lately teachers also receive pay increases with years of service. In most other state jobs the pay remains the same unless one is promoted or a legislative increase is appropriated and we all know how that goes. People who choose to go into public service, especially teachers, have to understand that it will not be as lucrative as private enterprise. I don't know if many private schools pay much, if any, more than public schools either. Some of you might can educate me on that. I do not agree with eliminating the stipend for a Master's Degree and wish my agency would offer an incentive for graduate degrees.

[vegattk]

Agree with you on 99% of that. Would like to see good statewide tests for teachers though. There are some pathetic teachers out there. My youngest just graduated from Appalachian, yet when he was in middle school some of the notes the teachers sent home looked like they had not made it past the fifth grade. Weed those out, go back to the basics, and tell politicians to keep their noses out of the classrooms.

I agree. I have worked with several bad teachers. But with the low pay, it's hard to get quality people in the classrooms. If you do get the quality, it's hard to keep them, especially now, if the state passes the bill that removes the stipend for a Master's.

A starting salary of $30,800.00 for a teacher fresh out of college is not bad, especially since it's a 10 month job. If teachers worked 12 months like the rest of us then that would equal $36,160.00. Not too bad. There are a lot of State Employees with college degrees not making that much, especially right out of college, who also do important jobs. Though I realize it has not been funded well lately teachers also receive pay increases with years of service. In most other state jobs the pay remains the same unless one is promoted or a legislative increase is appropriated and we all know how that goes. People who choose to go into public service, especially teachers, have to understand that it will not be as lucrative as private enterprise. I don't know if many private schools pay much, if any, more than public schools either. Some of you might can educate me on that. I do not agree with eliminating the stipend for a Master's Degree and wish my agency would offer an incentive for graduate degrees.

If you're going to start tallying teachers' working time, then it's only fair to compensate them for the many hours per night they spend making individualized lesson plans for each student, reading student papers, grading student homework and doing their own necessary prep work. If a teacher only spends 2 hours a day during the school year at home preparing, grading, etc. (and many teachers spend considerably more time than that), that itself adds up to another 45 days. (180 days X 2 hrs per day = 360 hours; 360 hours divided by 8 hours per day = 45 days). So we have 180 days of school, another 10 days of in service time, plus 45 days worth of time at home. That's 235 days right there. And if you think 2 hours per day is a lot of prep time, then you obviously don't know any teachers well enough to see the time they have to put in out of what is supposed to be their own time.

The average private sector worker works in the range of 240-245 days per year (52 weeks X 5 days per week = 260 days, less 15 or 20 days for the combination of holidays and vacation time per year), So what we're really looking at here is a difference of one or two weeks at most more than what the average teacher works.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... all-street

[asu7]

The problem is in central offices and school boards. If these people actually cared about the teachers and students learning their would not be a problem, my former school system just bought lap tops for all kids...to bad they didn't have the infrastructure to support all those lap tops so they crash every other day. Central office employees look out for themselves and their friends, even if you have 10-year and the principal doesn't like you, then you will be put on action plan. My former school system hired a superintendent that after we hired him, the teachers from the county he was leaving wrote our local paper thanking us for taking him. Found out one of the board members has a place at the beach next to him. Welcome to local politics, a lot of this is not on the teachers its about 2 or 3 levels above them and its not at the party in control. If you give them more money 9 times out of 10 they will misspend that money.

A lot of these purchases come from federal ESEA Title I money and the curriculum requires the use of computers. Many tests are mandated to be taken on computers. SRI is given only on computers if I'm not mistaken. My 7 year old took almost all of his state and locally mandated tests on desktops or laptops this year. Paper copies with bubble sheets, etc were not available

BTW, where did you get your 9 out of 10 statistic?

Science and all NC Extend 2 tests were available to be administered online this year. All EOCs could have been administered online as well. MSLs or Common Exams are paper pencil but can be incorporated into several online programs. Science is only administered at grades 5 and 8.

I can assure you that paper copies were available for all assessments. His school system might have taken all the formative assessments online. EOG math and reading was paper pencil.

As far as teacher pay is concerned ...

It needs to be improved drastically. Taking away the small on average 300 dollar a month increase if you have a masters is stupid. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong plain and simple. I hope you all voice this concern to your legislators.

Increase sales tax do whatever you need to do to ensure teachers get the pay they deserve. It is time to stop this mess.