Shadrack Mcgill, Alabama State Senator, Says Keeping Teacher Pay Low 'a Biblical Principle'
-
lol.
What's scarier than calfox getting to vote? Guys like this already in office...
It's a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach. To go in and raise someone's child for eight hours a day, or many people's children for eight hours a day, requires a calling. It better be a calling in your life. I know I wouldn't want to do it, OK? And these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It's just in them to do. It's the ability that God give 'em. And there are also some teachers, it wouldn't matter how much you would pay them, they would still perform to the same capacity. If you don't keep that in balance, you're going to attract people who are not called, who don't need to be teaching our children. So, everything has a balance
That might explain why Bama is 45th in education
lol.
What's scarier than calfox getting to vote? Guys like this already in office...
That might explain why Bama is 45th in education
I don't know if it's biblical or not, but that quote was pretty much exactly true.
First of all, here in the state of ohio, teachers are already making about twice the state average.
All of them are required to complete a degree and in many times a post graduate degree.
except in a few places perhaps science or mathematics you could learn all you need to teach school with an associates degree.
Second despite the hand wringing teaching school is 1 of the easiest jobs out there.
Excellent pay and benefits very short hours required in the classroom and at least 1 or 2 study halls.
Many holidays and the whole summer off.
Once the curriculum is set you teach by rote, that is that it's the same semester after semester.
Performance doesn't even come into play.
The same teacher will get much different results depending on who his or her students are.
By the time kids reach public schools unfortunately their desire and ability to learn is often set.
Being an excellent teacher has absolutely nothing to do with advanced degrees.
it has to do with a natural ability and the talent and enjoyment of the job.
Anyone can learn enough to get a teaching certificate and most will do okay in the right situation.
A few will excel and a few will be bad. Most will be mediocre whether they're making today's salary or twice as much. And doubling the salary will only bring bigger numbers to the profession. It will not make more excellence. You will still have the same ratio of good to bad especially remembering that those who don't perform well cant be fired for anything short of some outrageous behavior.
We have all going to school and had great teachers and teachers that are assholes.
They all get paid the same.
And please don't give me a what if situation this concerns some sort of compitition.
It will never happen if for no other reason Then the fact that it's not fair to judge the performance of the school system in east cleveland with the one in Aurora.
WSS
-
All of them are required to complete a degree and in many times a post graduate degree.
except in a few places perhaps science or mathematics you could learn all you need to teach school with an associates degree.
Considering math and science are the most important subjects in school, maybe that should be fixed
First of all, here in the state of ohio, teachers are already making about twice the state average.
What is the state average degree level?
By the time kids reach public schools unfortunately their desire and ability to learn is often set.
Proof? I don't believe that at all. Yeah there are a lot of shitty kids clogging up the system, slowing it down for everyone else, but your ability and desire isn't set by the time you enter 1st grade
From everything I've heard the teachers union sucks balls..., but you said not to speak in what ifs
And doubling the salary will only bring bigger numbers to the profession. It will not make more excellence. You will still have the same ratio of good to bad especially remembering that those who don't perform well cant be fired for anything short of some outrageous behavior.
More numbers + same ration = more good teachers
This thread wasn't so much about his idea and teachers, but more about he was at some prayer meeting and then referenced the Bible and God in his explanation for his stance on an issue. That brought the lulz
-
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
It equals the same ratio of good to bad teachers except that they all get paid more.
There is no incentive to perform above the mediocre.
And in your mind, what sucks balls about the union?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I could have warned you Woody. I was going to write how Steve believes exactly the same thing, minus the Jesus - that the key to getting qualified teachers is to pay them less and see who shows up. (Answer: the best, most dedicated teachers ever, and lots of them!) But I can't make my brain argue this today. I'm spent.
I wonder which other professions he imagines this works for, or if teachers are the only profession where dedication exists.
-
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
It equals the same ratio of good to bad teachers except that they all get paid more.
There is no incentive to perform above the mediocre.
And in your mind, what sucks balls about the union?
WSS
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
It equals the same ratio of good to bad teachers except that they all get paid more.
There is no incentive to perform above the mediocre.
And in your mind, what sucks balls about the union?
WSS
Isn't it really hard to fire crappy teachers because of the union? I remember some of my high school teachers talking bad about it.
Let's do some math Steve (I know, not the strong suit of a performing arts major)
You said the number of potential teachers would go up because of the pay raise, but the ratio of good to bad would stay the same. In your mind, this means that we will still have the same amount of good teachers, no more.
Before Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 100
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT1 = T*R = 50
After Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 200
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
(by your specifications, the total # of teachers increases but the ration remains the same
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT2 = T*R = 100
GT2 > GT1 Therefore in state 2 there are more good teachers
follow?
-
This is especially fun for me because my wife is a teacher. And she also went to grad school and got her masters so she could be a better teacher, and to do research. And then she went to another grad school so she could learn how to teach kids of a different age group (elementary schools kids) than the ones she studied in college (at-risk teens).
Apparently, what she didn't know is that she had a gift for teaching and that all of this knowledge she gained was pointless and makes no difference whatsoever.
-
Teachers deserve great pay - that's the genuine educators who really care, and have that
gift of encouragement, controlling the interaction in their classrooms, and who can get
kids to want to learn, and communicate affectively. That's a big order.
But the ones who got into it because they wanted summers off, but they hate it....
they should lose their jobs.
But the great teachers? They make a difference in kids' lives. It's a tough, tough job.
There's always an idiot to start a thread about what the idiot said, etc etc.
boring.
-
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
It equals the same ratio of good to bad teachers except that they all get paid more.
There is no incentive to perform above the mediocre.
And in your mind, what sucks balls about the union?
WSS
Isn't it really hard to fire crappy teachers because of the union? I remember some of my high school teachers talking bad about it.
Let's do some math Steve (I know, not the strong suit of a performing arts major)
You said the number of potential teachers would go up because of the pay raise, but the ratio of good to bad would stay the same. In your mind, this means that we will still have the same amount of good teachers, no more.
Before Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 100
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT1 = T*R = 50
After Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 200
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
(by your specifications, the total # of teachers increases but the ration remains the same
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT2 = T*R = 100
GT2 > GT1 Therefore in state 2 there are more good teachers
follow?
Isn't it really hard to fire crappy teachers because of the union? I remember some of my high school teachers talking bad about it.
Let's do some math Steve (I know, not the strong suit of a performing arts major)
You said the number of potential teachers would go up because of the pay raise, but the ratio of good to bad would stay the same. In your mind, this means that we will still have the same amount of good teachers, no more.
Before Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 100
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT1 = T*R = 50
After Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 200
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
(by your specifications, the total # of teachers increases but the ration remains the same
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT2 = T*R = 100
GT2 > GT1 Therefore in state 2 there are more good teachers
follow?
Follow?
Simple enough but just plain wrong.
Doubling the expense of education for school systems will not make for more teachers, it will probably make for less.
It is not now nor has it ever been a problem of too few teachers.
It's a matter of not having enough money to pay the ones we have.
Follow?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
This is especially fun for me because my wife is a teacher. And she also went to grad school and got her masters so she could be a better teacher, and to do research. And then she went to another grad school so she could learn how to teach kids of a different age group (elementary schools kids) than the ones she studied in college (at-risk teens).
Apparently, what she didn't know is that she had a gift for teaching and that all of this knowledge she gained was pointless and makes no difference whatsoever.
This is especially fun for me because my wife is a teacher. And she also went to grad school and got her masters so she could be a better teacher, and to do research. And then she went to another grad school so she could learn how to teach kids of a different age group (elementary schools kids) than the ones she studied in college (at-risk teens).
Apparently, what she didn't know is that she had a gift for teaching and that all of this knowledge she gained was pointless and makes no difference whatsoever.
Correct.
WSS
-
Aye aye aye.
You're just wrong about everything. You really are.
-
Isn't it really hard to fire crappy teachers because of the union? I remember some of my high school teachers talking bad about it.
Let's do some math Steve (I know, not the strong suit of a performing arts major)
You said the number of potential teachers would go up because of the pay raise, but the ratio of good to bad would stay the same. In your mind, this means that we will still have the same amount of good teachers, no more.
Before Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 100
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT1 = T*R = 50
After Pay Raise:
Total Number of Teachers = T = 200
Ratio of Good to Bad Teachers = R = 0.5
(by your specifications, the total # of teachers increases but the ration remains the same
Total Number of Good Teachers = GT2 = T*R = 100
GT2 > GT1 Therefore in state 2 there are more good teachers
follow?
Follow?
Simple enough but just plain wrong.
Doubling the expense of education for school systems will not make for more teachers, it will probably make for less.
It is not now nor has it ever been a problem of too few teachers.
It's a matter of not having enough money to pay the ones we have.
Follow?
WSS
Follow?
Simple enough but just plain wrong.
Doubling the expense of education for school systems will not make for more teachers, it will probably make for less.
It is not now nor has it ever been a problem of too few teachers.
It's a matter of not having enough money to pay the ones we have.
Follow?
WSS
........ let's look at your posts IN THIS THREAD
And doubling the salary will only bring bigger numbers to the profession
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
You had said earlier it will bring more teachers... now it will bring less?
-
Follow?
Simple enough but just plain wrong.
Doubling the expense of education for school systems will not make for more teachers, it will probably make for less.
It is not now nor has it ever been a problem of too few teachers.
It's a matter of not having enough money to pay the ones we have.
Follow?
WSS
........ let's look at your posts IN THIS THREAD
And doubling the salary will only bring bigger numbers to the profession
Again more numbers does not equal more good teachers.
You had said earlier it will bring more teachers... now it will bring less?
........ let's look at your posts IN THIS THREAD
I don't think the concept is that hard to grasp.
Lets say we have 10 individuals.
3 may be extraordinary 5 average and 2 not very good at all.
Double the amount of applicants and now those numbers read 6, 10 and 4.
The ratio is the same, see?
Now if there were a system in place and you could get rid of that bottom 20 percent that could make for an improvement. But that's not how it works.
The other concept you need to understand is the fact that there is a finite amount of money available.
If a school system can afford to hire 40 teachers at 60,000 per year and the price goes to 100,000 you end up with a net loss,and the ratio of good to mediocre to poor will remain the same.
sorry if I didn't make that clear.
WSS
You had said earlier it will bring more teachers... now it will bring less?
-
You gotta decide if you think the amount of teachers are going up or not
... we'll look at a few scenarios you've come up with
If the school can't afford as many teachers you would think they would get rid of the crappy ones assuming all else is equal, right? I mean, based off of my school they'll actually just remove the more pointless programs like industrial arts, and then stuff like foreign language, but if they ever got into moving teachers, I'd assume they'd keep the best if possible.
Lets say we have 10 individuals.
3 may be extraordinary 5 average and 2 not very good at all.
Double the amount of applicants and now those numbers read 6, 10 and 4.
The ratio is the same, see?
Ok, so those are the APPLICANTS. Why would a school knowingly hire the average and poor teachers when there are 6 extraordinary ones to hire?
-
You gotta decide if you think the amount of teachers are going up or not
... we'll look at a few scenarios you've come up with
If the school can't afford as many teachers you would think they would get rid of the crappy ones assuming all else is equal, right? I mean, based off of my school they'll actually just remove the more pointless programs like industrial arts, and then stuff like foreign language, but if they ever got into moving teachers, I'd assume they'd keep the best if possible.
Lets say we have 10 individuals.
3 may be extraordinary 5 average and 2 not very good at all.
Double the amount of applicants and now those numbers read 6, 10 and 4.
The ratio is the same, see?
Ok, so those are the APPLICANTS. Why would a school knowingly hire the average and poor teachers when there are 6 extraordinary ones to hire?
You gotta decide if you think the amount of teachers are going up or not
... we'll look at a few scenarios you've come up with
If the school can't afford as many teachers you would think they would get rid of the crappy ones assuming all else is equal, right? I mean, based off of my school they'll actually just remove the more pointless programs like industrial arts, and then stuff like foreign language, but if they ever got into moving teachers, I'd assume they'd keep the best if possible.
Ok, so those are the APPLICANTS. Why would a school knowingly hire the average and poor teachers when there are 6 extraordinary ones to hire?
Because woody the aptitude isn't part of the application process.
If you don't have the desire, or the talent to do that job it doesn't matter what your grades were.
If you only go by the transcripts you have no idea of the aptitude that will show itself within a few years and at that point you can't get rid of someone who is mediocre.
Would you hire a musician on the basis of his degree?
Would you draft a quarterback who had the best gpa?
If it were up to you can you think of a way to hire teachers other than by their degree?
WSS
-
And besides the fact that I strongly disagree that industrial arts and foreign language classes are pointless you just can't dump a teacher that's mediocre and has been so for 10 years for agreat one who just arrived.
WSS
-
I never said foreign language was pointless.
I would never hire a musician for anything...
A QBs GPA is pointless, you rate them using other methods
Just like a potential teacher's GPA isn't the only way to rate them.
Because woody the aptitude isn't part of the application process.
If you don't have the desire, or the talent to do that job it doesn't matter what your grades were.
I don't know where you got the idea that only a teacher's grades determine their ability, as if there are no other indications during the entire hiring process. That's why my resume is just a big picture of my GPA, right? And I don't ever have interviews....
You've basically resorted to saying "Well there is no way to rate teacher so there!" You just said there were more good teacher applicants. I am gonna say it will be easy to tell who they are in the application process vs. the shitty applicants. Therefore you can hire more good teachers...
I'll take a note as to never tutor any performance art majors while I am in school... they'll have to deal with their super hard Algebra by themselves.
-
I completely disagree with the first statement. Being an excellent teacher means you know your shit, allow students to understand the material, and that you care about your students. Degrees and GPAs are a decent indicator on whether or not someone knows their shit.
**************************************************************
No, Vapor. Completely wrong. sorry, but really wrong.
There all all sorts of "teachers" who really are experts at knowing their stuff, but for various reasons, they can't communicate it to students.
1. Arrogance maybe, the "self-vindication" of talking over the heads of students, for example, using acronyms that the students don't know,
and then "proving" that the arrogant "teacher" is superior..
2. Or, the inability to explain advanced understanding from the students initial point of understanding. When I had been asked to
help other analysts with complex code, I have used pictures to explain complex logic.
Sure, I knew it backwards and forwards - but others didn't. They couldn't grasp the linear progression of the huge sections it was a mess..., until we went over it,
and I created a "flowchart" of pictures on the overhead that made it all make sense. Then, the "light" goes on.
Just because you're an expert, doesn't mean you can communicate that same understanding to others. I once had a teacher who used to be a professor,
but he and his wife moved to Ohio. Now, high school chemistry, right? No big deal. But this prof couldn't understand how he lost us from the first day.
He was just trying to start at a level HE thought was basic, but in truth - it was intermediate - in college. They ended up having to get another chemistry teacher
to teach the class. Steve was quite correct.
I had a Phd from India get mad as hell at me, and try to get me fired once, many years ago. He was wrong, and said I was stupid every time I tried
explaining how the computer software worked that ran his machine. LOL
But I was right. So, in a meeting with the VP of R&D, I explained the whole disagreement on a whiteboard. He admitted he was wrong
and apologized. In his "expertness", he was mentally skipping steps in the complex calcs - and coming up with answers that he understood
how to derive the final answer from. But in computer logic, that doesn't fly when other people were using the software.
-
Cal, learn to read what I write, please. I said:
I completely disagree with the first statement. Being an excellent teacher means you know your shit, allow students to understand the material, and that you care about your students. Degrees and GPAs are a decent indicator on whether or not someone knows their shit.
See the emboldened text. A teacher who does the things you said is not allowing their students to understand the material.
-
Cal, I am gonna say the teacher on this board knows more about being a teacher than you do...
-
Say it all you want, but "allow the student to understand" means diddley,
if the instructor doesn't know how to communicate it in terms that others can pick up on.
Letting them just figure it out themselves? Ha. I don't think so.
I married a teacher, and I've mentored a lot over the years.
I stand by what I explained earlier.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login