OT: Racist Math questions for 3rd graders in Georgia

[EKmane]

the difference you're referring to is that of a weekend boys&girls club volunteer and a public school teacher. and god have mercy and the poor chinese kid you may adopt some day. i think he'd be better off living on leaves and rainwater than 'raised' by someone with this much cognitive dissonance and blissful ignorance.

you, sir, are a piece of shit. if you want a cushy job, go join the postal service. or become a cop and assault some young black kids for great pay and benefits. DO NOT enter the one profession where children depend on you [even if they don't even know it] and where you'll shape the lives of 100-200 children [you know, otherwise known as '"people", PER YEAR.

You were really taking me there with your posts. I have two young children and another on the way and I commend you for your passion about this topic, we need more people like you. I was getting ready to rep you, then I read the bolded. I want to believe that you don't mean that. I want to believe that you got caught up in the moment and were trying to call him racist or something. I NEVER ONCE seen where Sick was racist, so I was wondering why he had to go assault some young Black kids for a cushy job? You completely lost me there?

 

[NinerSickness]

vvoland you're not being fair to me at all. The only thing you know about me is that I don't think the PROFESSION of public school teacher is beneficial to children. I never said people couldn't do a good job within the limitations thereof (although I didn't experience a lot of that). You know nothing about my work ethic nor my willingness to go out of my way to help others; yet you summed me up as a "piece of shit" who will do the bare minimum as a teacher. I suppose someone has to believe public schools are a good thing to be a good public school teacher?

And filosfy: Did I call the people who disagreed with me in ths thread stupid? I said NN was trolling and that he's a hate monger because he willingly admit that he was. I said "that's funny" when imac said teachers are not paid during the summer. I didn't reply with name calling when he said my "ignorance" was showing through in this thread. I simply said he should back up that statemet if he's going to make it. In fact go back to our longer Tedd Ginn debate; not one personal insult (Crabtree thread).

I said NN was the kind of assumptions and being ignorant when he told me I'm simply reiderating what I heard from a pastor (I don't attend a church). He said he doesn't think my home-schooled friends are "brilliant" when he didn't know the first thing about them. That's the definition of ignorance and assuming. 100% fair statement.

That's not the same thing as calling someone stupid for disagreeing with me. I don't like being accused of that.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

You guys.

 

[vvoland]

You were really taking me there with your posts. I have two young children and another on the way and I commend you for your passion about this topic, we need more people like you. I was getting ready to rep you, then I read the bolded. I want to believe that you don't mean that. I want to believe that you got caught up in the moment and were trying to call him racist or something. I NEVER ONCE seen where Sick was racist, so I was wondering why he had to go assault some young Black kids for a cushy job? You completely lost me there?

EK, you're correct, I was out of line with that comment. I was not, howe, trying to paint sick as racist. It was a commentary on the racism in the police force, their job security, and not on sick's racial tolerance. I agree that it was very poorly worded and would like to recant that example.

P.S. great avatar.

 

[vvoland]

vvoland you're not being fair to me at all. The only thing you know about me is that I don't think the PROFESSION of public school teacher is beneficial to children. I never said people couldn't do a good job within the limitations thereof (although I didn't experience a lot of that). You know nothing about my work ethic nor my willingness to go out of my way to help others; yet you summed me up as a "piece of shit" who will do the bare minimum as a teacher. I suppose someone has to believe public schools are a good thing to be a good public school teacher?

And filosfy: Did I call the people who disagreed with me in ths thread stupid? I said NN was trolling and that he's a hate monger because he willingly admit that he was. I said "that's funny" when imac said teachers are not paid during the summer. I didn't reply with name calling when he said my "ignorance" was showing through in this thread. I simply said he should back up that statemet if he's going to make it. In fact go back to our longer Tedd Ginn debate; not one personal insult (Crabtree thread).

I said NN was the kind of assumptions and being ignorant when he told me I'm simply reiderating what I heard from a pastor (I don't attend a church). He said he doesn't think my home-schooled friends are "brilliant" when he didn't know the first thing about them. That's the definition of ignorance and assuming. 100% fair statement.

That's not the same thing as calling someone stupid for disagreeing with me. I don't like being accused of that.

I know very little about you other than what your writing implies. Your direct statement was that teachers don't help, but actually hurt, children. In the same breath, you talk about entering the profession for the money. 60k is a good salary only if one works the school hours only, not if one is staying after school to turtor, mentor, and counsel kids in need. If one is grading papers til 8 and is in school at 7, well that a 13 hour work day and I can't imagine 60k is an adequate salary for the endeavor.

You never once implied you'd be there to help kids. In fact, you stated, pretty clearly, the exact opposite. That leads me to the fairly logical conclusion that you'd be there to collect a paycheck and little else. I hope I'm wrong and my attempts to dissuade you from entering the field are unfounded. Your posts, directly and implicitly, make me doubt.

Seriously, do you see yourself as a teacher that would be crafting lesson plans til late in the night? Grading papers in ways that would take up a ton of hours after school? Staying late because some kid needs an adult in his corner? Creatively circumventing the constraints placed on teachers by the school districts? Your posts have said the.exact opposite, primarily that you have no intention to actually help the kids you'd be teaching.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You believe the quality of a teacher is a bigger factor than the quality of a parent?



I do give a damn about the kids. There's a difference between giving a damn about kids and committing an enormous potion of one's life to helping kids in a self-sacrificing way. If I wanted to do something for kids I'd probably adopt one from a country that actually knows the meaning of the word poverty like China. But I'm not married, and I wouldn't want to adopt children unless I were. And even if I were married I wouldn't do it unless I were certain we'd be able to handle it.

Obviously the parent plays a more significant role than a single teacher. Can't change that, though.

The second paragraph is BS based on the allegations you have leveled at teachers. You have effectively stated that you will be a bad teacher. But you'll care about the kids even when good teachers don't in your view? That makes sense.

 

[EKmane]

EK, you're correct, I was out of line with that comment. I was not, howe, trying to paint sick as racist. It was a commentary on the racism in the police force, their job security, and not on sick's racial tolerance. I agree that it was very poorly worded and would like to recant that example.

P.S. great avatar.

Got it, I'm back on board.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

vvoland you're not being fair to me at all. The only thing you know about me is that I don't think the PROFESSION of public school teacher is beneficial to children. I never said people couldn't do a good job within the limitations thereof (although I didn't experience a lot of that). You know nothing about my work ethic nor my willingness to go out of my way to help others; yet you summed me up as a "piece of shit" who will do the bare minimum as a teacher. I suppose someone has to believe public schools are a good thing to be a good public school teacher?

And filosfy: Did I call the people who disagreed with me in ths thread stupid? I said NN was trolling and that he's a hate monger because he willingly admit that he was. I said "that's funny" when imac said teachers are not paid during the summer. I didn't reply with name calling when he said my "ignorance" was showing through in this thread. I simply said he should back up that statemet if he's going to make it. In fact go back to our longer Tedd Ginn debate; not one personal insult (Crabtree thread).

I said NN was the kind of assumptions and being ignorant when he told me I'm simply reiderating what I heard from a pastor (I don't attend a church). He said he doesn't think my home-schooled friends are "brilliant" when he didn't know the first thing about them. That's the definition of ignorance and assuming. 100% fair statement.

That's not the same thing as calling someone stupid for disagreeing with me. I don't like being accused of that.

There it is. "That's not fair!" Why is it that social conservatives are so willing to object when they believe they are being treated unfairly, but so quick to criticize others for complaining about fairness? I find it very interesting.

Sick, sorry, but you've painted yourself into a corner on this one and you're not getting any sympathy from me. Let's review your argument:

1) You basically looked at the laziest, most incompetent teachers out there and held them up as the standard for teachers.

2) You lamented a system that allowed them to keep their jobs.

3) You stated that teachers don't care about their students.

4) You claimed that the school system was harmful to children.

5) You then claimed that you wanted to be a teacher because of the pay and the minimal hours.

As VV has accurately pointed out, teaching is only lucrative if you only work from 8-3. There are plenty of teachers out there who do that, and you have made it clear that you aspire to be one of them. Those teachers are the ones that are guilty of all the allegations and aspersions you have cast on them. You aspire to become something you hate because of the money. That's one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard, frankly. And you have given us absolutely no reason to think that you would care about your students at all. Quite the opposite.

To make it worse, you have used the worst teachers as the baseline when discussing teachers, and the highest state cost per student to discuss teacher salaries, in a rather disingenuous arguing tactic that emphasizes the extremes.

You have raised a handful of worthwhile points in this thread, but they are completely overshadowed by the outright stupidity of your current argument. I genuinely hope you aren't seriously considering becoming a teacher. What you have said here today makes me believe you would be precisely the sort of teacher who exacerbates many of the current shortfalls in the system.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

It's no easier abused than ANY OTHER social program in this country. And if a verification program is required...test 'em...but that point is absolutely ridiculous consider that massive corruption that exists because of current assistance programs...wow...

The argument for fairness is often made...what about fairness to me and my wife who can do a far better job in less time? Why should I pay to educate my own kids and then someone else's who will only be educated enough to collect their own benefits.

That doesn't eliminate the problem of bureaucracy, then, which is one of Sick's biggest complaints. You need bureaucracy to establish standards, implement a testing system, verify that the testing is done appropriately, etc.

There is corruption in social programs, no doubt. But Sick is proposing in effect that we pay people for a service - teaching their own children. Not only is that more ripe for abuse because it will be difficult to verify that the service is being performed, but if it's not, it's the kids who suffer. If someone defrauds welfare, it's the American people as a whole who suffer, not individual kids who aren't responsible for the fact that their parents aren't teaching them.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Don't know NinerSickness well, as I've only known of his posts since he came to this site (so take this post with a grain of salt).....nor do I think that posts on a message board paint the entire picture of what a man (or woman) make.....that said, he does just seem to talk louder when someone disagrees with him. He also likes to "reiderates" [sic] how idiotic others are when they bring up counter arguments.

For what it's worth, I thought your post (#177) hit the nail on the head (TREMENDOUS post). Not all my teachers were great (private or public), but the ones that cared far outweighed the ones who just collected a paycheck. In my humble opinion, parents need to get better, not teachers. The lack of personal accountability (something that should be instilled by parents/guardians) is sorely lacking in our society.
End

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[NinerSickness]

VVo first of all with pensions a $67K salary effectively becomes $107K per year on the average life span. People go into professions to make money. Would you trash a guy who went into Real Estate to make money even if he was really good at it?

I don't know how else I can explain this... I believe public schools harm children in many ways. I don't think there should be public schools. I've explained why giving examples of how prvate & home schoolers obliterate public schoolers' test scores EVERY time I've ever seen. Home schoolers in particular test around the 85th percentile in every subject. 85th!

That said a teacher, within the limitations of public schooling, can make it even worse by not having any enthusiansm & not doing the extras you mentioned. I've already done those extra kind of things tutoring & working with kids in the course of my life (sometime for miniscule pay; sometimes for free). Why would I stop when I become a teacher? But even if I beome the best teacher in the entire country I'm still in a profession that harms children because of the dumbed down curriculum, the years of busy work & useless memorization, non-phonetic learning of words, making everyone learn at the same rate and on the same material, inherent disrespect for parents in the curriculum, the over-the-top handcuffing of teachers when it comes to disciplining children, the deemphasizing of competetiveness where everyone gets a trophy, forcing EVERYONE to take multitudes of elective classes in which they have no interest nor do they help them in their lives / careeres, the rule of law forcing children to be in school even if they're at an age when they can start to get more valuable apprenticeship or work experience, etc. The fact remains that, sccording to the Manhattan Institute, 35% of California kids drop out. What percent of home schoolers drop out? That would be just about zero. Same with private schoolers.

I will do the best I can. But you're not going to get me to believe public schools are a good thing. They're a blight on society. It's ALL about pensions & benefits for a bureaucratic army.

1) You basically looked at the laziest, most incompetent teachers out there and held them up as the standard for teachers.

No I didn't.

2) You lamented a system that allowed them to keep their jobs.

As should everyone!

3) You stated that teachers don't care about their students.

No I didn't! They haven't in my experience, but I didn't say that at all. You just made that up!

4) You claimed that the school system was harmful to children.

It is. You know who agrees with me? John Taylor Gatto - who earned Teacher of the Year for New York State; he agrees with me on almost every aspect. Was he a bad teacher?

5) You then claimed that you wanted to be a teacher because of the pay and the minimal hours.

Minimual DAYS; not minimal hours. 160 days. Teachers aren't grading papers in the summer.

Explain to me how John Taylor Gatto is a bad teacher.

 

[NinerSickness]

Any more personal attacks on posters from anyone and I'm sending this thread to the abyss. This shit is getting way too out of control.

Hmmm... I don't have a problem with that. But just to be fair didn't you call someone a moron for thinking Jeff Backus is a better pass protector than Joe Staley?

Just sayin'.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Hmmm... I don't have a problem with that. But just to be fair didn't you call someone a moron for thinking Jeff Backus is a better pass protector than Joe Staley?

Just sayin'.

I thought that thread was perfectly under control. People call each other idiots all the time. Unlike this shitfest being thrown back and forth.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

VVo first of all with pensions a $67K salary effectively becomes $107K per year on the average life span. People go into professions to make money. Would you trash a guy who went into Real Estate to make money even if he was really good at it?

I don't know how else I can explain this... I believe public schools harm children in many ways. I don't think there should be public schools. I've explained why giving examples of how prvate & home schoolers obliterate public schoolers' test scores EVERY time I've ever seen. Home schoolers in particular test around the 85th percentile in every subject. 85th!

That said a teacher, within the limitations of public schooling, can make it even worse by not having any enthusiansm & not doing the extras you mentioned. I've already done those extra kind of things tutoring & working with kids in the course of my life (sometime for miniscule pay; sometimes for free). Why would I stop when I become a teacher? But even if I beome the best teacher in the entire country I'm still in a profession that harms children because of the dumbed down curriculum, the years of busy work & useless memorization, non-phonetic learning of words, making everyone learn at the same rate and on the same material, inherent disrespect for parents in the curriculum, the over-the-top handcuffing of teachers when it comes to disciplining children, the deemphasizing of competetiveness where everyone gets a trophy, forcing EVERYONE to take multitudes of elective classes in which they have no interest nor do they help them in their lives / careeres, the rule of law forcing children to be in school even if they're at an age when they can start to get more valuable apprenticeship or work experience, etc. The fact remains that, sccording to the Manhattan Institute, 35% of California kids drop out. What percent of home schoolers drop out? That would be just about zero. Same with private schoolers.

I will do the best I can. But you're not going to get me to believe public schools are a good thing. They're a blight on society. It's ALL about pensions & benefits for a bureaucratic army.



No I didn't.



As should everyone!



No I didn't! They haven't in my experience, but I didn't say that at all. You just made that up!



It is. You know who agrees with me? John Taylor Gatto - who earned Teacher of the Year for New York State; he agrees with me on almost every aspect. Was he a bad teacher?



Minimual DAYS; not minimal hours. 160 days. Teachers aren't grading papers in the summer.

Explain to me how John Taylor Gatto is a bad teacher.

A few thoughts.

First, re: your complaints in bold, virtually every one is true of the private education system as well. However, those things can often be accounted for by good teachers. That's what separates good teachers from average or bad teachers, and what makes it so difficult to be a good teacher.

Classes can be divided by ability to an extent, and many public schools do this, but at the end of the day a teacher has as few as 20 and as many as 50 students in a single classroom. They can't possibly give them the time and attention that a home-school teacher gives her/his handful of kids. That's a simple reality.

Re: a "dumbed down" curriculum, again, a good teacher can absolutely control that by supplementing with his/her own materials.

The culture of "everyone wins, everyone is special" is pervasive and has more to do with home than school. Private schools won't change that, and home schooling would probably exacerbate it. I had a student's mother tell me that he was struggling in 9th grade history because he was two weeks premature. That's not a school issue, it's a cultural issue.

I do agree re: disciplining kids. My sister can't bar kids from class when they come in 45 minutes late, and that's ridiculous IMO.

I'm assuming you mean required classes rather than electives, and that's the same at any kind of school until college. Private schools don't mitigate that and are often worse in that regard.

I think it's a shame that many schools have cut programs like shop, car repair, and others that teach specialized skills that can greatly benefit people who don't go on to college. However, those sorts of programs have always been more a domain of public rather than private schools.

Re: the teachers don't care comment, I cited you earlier. You said people who have no concern for the students shove curriculum down their throats. It certainly sounded like you were talking about the teachers.

As for 160 days, teachers work after school and on weekends. When I was teaching, I worked probably a minimum of 10 hours each weekend. So in 32 weeks, let's add 32 days. That's 192 days.

Then, final exams, papers, etc. generally occur the week before winter and summer break. For that matter, we routinely had projects due right before Thanksgiving and spring break. So let's say you add 15 days there. That's 207.

Teachers have meetings and what-not the last week of summer before kids arrive. That's 212.

Then, there are probably five days a year when you have what you derided as "faculty work days." These are actually meetings, etc. dealing with issues like liability, workplace safety, etc. When you're teaching, I'm sure you'll count them. That's 217.

I won't even go into the work that teachers do during the summer, reading materials for next year, re-working curriculum, keeping certification current, etc.

So we've got a bare minimum of 217 days (maybe slightly less if you're teaching grade school and there isn't much grading). In the private sector, people generally work 240-250 days (two or three weeks of vacation). There are 10 federal holidays. So most private sector workers put in 230-240 days. So we're talking about a difference of 10-20 days per year at best, which doesn't take into account the 12+ hour days teachers are putting in during the school year. But hey, if the minimal days (not hours) appeal to you, that's great.

It was nice to take advantage of the two or three weeks in the summer when I was more or less free to do some traveling or relax. Almost made it worth the $33K I was making without a pension in a major urban center. I left in large part because I didn't think I could raise a family on a teacher's salary.

 

[sayheykid1]

FWIW- I am guessing I worked under 200 days in 2011 in my full time job. I took one week off and I average four days per week in my full time job.

 

[NinerSickness]

Classes can be divided by ability to an extent, and many public schools do this, but at the end of the day a teacher has as few as 20 and as many as 50 students in a single classroom. They can't possibly give them the time and attention that a home-school teacher gives her/his handful of kids. That's a simple reality.

That's only a reality in public schools because EVERYHYING from bus drivers to landscapers is ridiculously expensive (Pensions being the main reason). You made my point for me. Private schools get the ratio down & obviously home schools do too.

Re: a "dumbed down" curriculum, again, a good teacher can absolutely control that by supplementing with his/her own materials.

Only if they want to get fired. They have SOME freedom of curriculum but VERY little. There are so many rules about what they can & can't do in the classroom it's absurd.

The culture of "everyone wins, everyone is special" is pervasive and has more to do with home than school.

Yes some homes have clueless parents. A lot of them do. But public schools follow the turn everyone into a huge pussy mantra to the letter. Parents passively do it; schools do it on purpose.

We actually agree more than you might believe about the electives. I just think they should be optional; some people simply don't care about a lot of those things whether they take a class about it or not.

Re: the teachers don't care comment, I cited you earlier. You said people who have no concern for the students shove curriculum down their throats. It certainly sounded like you were talking about the teachers.

No; I'm talking about their bosses. In a private school if a parent doesn't think they're doing a good job they can just go somewhere else. Not so in public schools; you get what they tell you and you'll like it.

As for 160 days, teachers work after school and on weekends. When I was teaching, I worked probably a minimum of 10 hours each weekend. So in 32 weeks, let's add 32 days. That's 192 days.

Fair enough. I'll accept that. Or even 207. But even 192-207 days a year is pretty good if you're effectively making about $107K a year with the pension. I think you got a little carried away after that, but any way you slice it the total hours for the year are not that much.

By the way I don't personally know anyone in the private sector who makes that much money without averaging AT LEAST 10 hour days. Minimum.

 

[NinerSickness]

FWIW- I am guessing I worked under 200 days in 2011 in my full time job. I took one week off and I average four days per week in my full time job.

Sounds like a pretty nice gig.

 

[sayheykid1]

Sounds like a pretty nice gig.

I have made more money in the past but in this economy it is nice to have a permanent IT gig with benefits.

 

[sayheykid1]

That's only a reality in public schools because EVERYHYING from bus drivers to landscapers is ridiculously expensive (Pensions being the main reason). You made my point for me. Private schools get the ratio down & obviously home schools do too.



Only if they want to get fired. They have SOME freedom of curriculum but VERY little. There are so many rules about what they can & can't do in the classroom it's absurd.



Yes some homes have clueless parents. A lot of them do. But public schools follow the turn everyone into a huge pussy mantra to the letter. Parents passively do it; schools do it on purpose.

We actually agree more than you might believe about the electives. I just think they should be optional; some people simply don't care about a lot of those things whether they take a class about it or not.



No; I'm talking about their bosses. In a private school if a parent doesn't think they're doing a good job they can just go somewhere else. Not so in public schools; you get what they tell you and you'll like it.



Fair enough. I'll accept that. Or even 207. But even 192-207 days a year is pretty good if you're effectively making about $107K a year with the pension. I think you got a little carried away after that, but any way you slice it the total hours for the year are not that much.

By the way I don't personally know anyone in the private sector who makes that much money without averaging AT LEAST 10 hour days. Minimum.

I have multiple friends in sales that surpass that total in pay that work 6-8 hours per day and I already mentioned my database programmer friend.
I don't make that much in salary but I do have benefits and a somewhat generous matching 401 K plan.

Where do you come up with the $107K per year figure?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That's only a reality in public schools because EVERYHYING from bus drivers to landscapers is ridiculously expensive (Pensions being the main reason). You made my point for me. Private schools get the ratio down & obviously home schools do too.



Only if they want to get fired. They have SOME freedom of curriculum but VERY little. There are so many rules about what they can & can't do in the classroom it's absurd.



Yes some homes have clueless parents. A lot of them do. But public schools follow the turn everyone into a huge pussy mantra to the letter. Parents passively do it; schools do it on purpose.

We actually agree more than you might believe about the electives. I just think they should be optional; some people simply don't care about a lot of those things whether they take a class about it or not.



No; I'm talking about their bosses. In a private school if a parent doesn't think they're doing a good job they can just go somewhere else. Not so in public schools; you get what they tell you and you'll like it.



Fair enough. I'll accept that. Or even 207. But even 192-207 days a year is pretty good if you're effectively making about $107K a year with the pension. I think you got a little carried away after that, but any way you slice it the total hours for the year are not that much.

By the way I don't personally know anyone in the private sector who makes that much money without averaging AT LEAST 10 hour days. Minimum.

In private high school, I generally had 25+ students in a class. That's smaller than public, but not by much. Of course, if you close public schools in favor of private, class size in private schools will get bigger. Especially if you make private schools a for-profit endeavor, which I'm assuming you would at least consider?

My experience - and again, this is at the high school level - is that teachers do have considerable flexibility in curriculum. My sister is reviewed, but no one is peeking over her shoulder to make sure she's toeing the line all the time.

Again, I taught at a private school where I encountered the same sort of "everyone is a winner" attitude. I was basically told I couldn't fail students, and even Cs were strongly discouraged. I'm a pretty tough grader, and I was called into the assistant principal's office more than once to discuss it. I don't think that's a school thing.

It certainly seemed like the teachers were the ones you were saying don't care about students, as they are the ones actually "forcing [the content] down their throats." If not, I would still disagree that administrators don't care about the kids, but I have less objection with it.

Finally, you can't just add in a pension as if it's present-day money. There is inflation. These days there is a genuine risk of losing it. I have also read that teachers' pensions are considerably lower than those of other government workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/business/06pension.html

I haven't scrutinized the numbers, but the NYT is a pretty valid source IMO. Perhaps you should direct some of your ire at the police.