• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should teachers be paid purely based on years of experience?

Should teachers be paid purely based on years of experience?


  • Total voters
    32
You have no concept of how a school is run if you think $20,000 is a pittance.

It IS a pittance. That was the upper bound I estimated for a LARGE school with several thousand students. Such a school will have a budget on the order of several MILLION dollars. I think it's worth spending a small fraction of 1% of the school's budget to find out if it's actually accomplishing its primary objective and who its best and worst performers are...rather than just guessing which teachers and school investments produce the best student results, and keeping incompetent teachers on the payroll for years because measuring their performance would be too expensive. But that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Education is not your standard product, competition among schools and teachers won't work near as well as competition among students. If you can't get them to care about their own future, there is no hope.

And to Justabubba ( I just knew some would fail to understand my comment about potentially paying a teacher who fails students more): The bit about failing relates to the above quote too. It's not about failing students to fail them. DOH! It's about holding kids back who haven't shown the skills to move to the next grade... and dragging those students down.

Instead of pushing illiterates along, failing a kid has an effect. On him and others. They get the message they are expected to succeed before moving on. It puts pressures on the kid to learn. It's a clear message. You can't just show up and expect to be moved along. If they don't care... then they can sit in the third grade for two or three years. Or take summer school to catch up. Believe me, they'll care. If not, we always need people to pick fruit and vegetables.

And Utah: Competition does work. If a school wants the finest teachers and pays them according to negotiations with the teacher (not some union scale), standards are elevated. Parents will notice. All boats will rise.

.
 
Last edited:
No, actually it's about teacher pay. But regardless of what you think this thread is about, our educational system should be geared toward students, not teachers.

Aren't you just the Mr Motherhood? Why don't you add something of substance instead of the usual confused drivel? We're not talking about curricula, we're talking about how to pay teachers. Try to keep up.
 
Aren't you just the Mr Motherhood? Why don't you add something of substance instead of the usual confused drivel? We're not talking about curricula, we're talking about how to pay teachers. Try to keep up.

Yep, some of us have been discussing that for the entire thread, instead of just poking in here a couple times to post silly one-line hit-and-run statements without actually participating in the conversation. Try to keep up.
 
Last edited:
The majority are unable to do it because of two factors. The first is that the parents have received a substandard education by the public indoctrination system. The second is that the government has made it to where both parents have to work due to the sheer amount of taxes people have to pay.

One very glaring error in your philosophy....actually 2.....
We don't RECEIVE an education, we take it. When teachers teach 30 kids in one classroom, and some do well, and some do not, it is NOT the teachers fault. He/She puts the information out, but SOME kids are listening, and others or not....
And taxes? Taxes have been low for a decade or so, at least, thanks to Bush. Even letting the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will still be lower than when I went to public schools.
 
One very glaring error in your philosophy....actually 2.....
We don't RECEIVE an education, we take it. When teachers teach 30 kids in one classroom, and some do well, and some do not, it is NOT the teachers fault. He/She puts the information out, but SOME kids are listening, and others or not....
And taxes? Taxes have been low for a decade or so, at least, thanks to Bush. Even letting the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will still be lower than when I went to public schools.


quote of the day :thumbs:
 
Private schools cannot pick and choose students. They have to accept everyone if their parents can pay for it. It's against the law in every state to allow private schools to pick and choose. As far as excluding students, public schools do it all the time. It's called expulsion.
No, it is common for private schools to refuse students, in most states. And they filter out kids in many ways. One is testing to get in, another is the high tuition which is not tax deductible. Now, church schools may be more flexible, but then you have to put up with "intelligent design" and/or creationism.
What state do you live in?
 
It's actually quite easy to be expelled from school. Bring a toy gun to school and we'll see how long you'll be able to attend. Ask too many questions and you will be expelled for causing trouble.
and what kind of questions are you referring to?
 
What about the schools in New York City where children as young as 5 are arrested for failing to listen to the teachers? What about schools that lose accredidation from the state? Should they still be allowed to teach when they have demonstrated that they cannot?

arrested? you are making that up....
 
In Finland the public education system employs Masters Degree level education for teachers... Guess who has the most effective education system in the world? Teachers level of education should be the primary determining factor on their pay.. of course they deserve raises just like anyone else in the job market.
 
We don't RECEIVE an education, we take it. When teachers teach 30 kids in one classroom, and some do well, and some do not, it is NOT the teachers fault. He/She puts the information out, but SOME kids are listening, and others or not....

A good teacher can certainly change the proportion of those who are listening. Of course kids are going to be falling asleep in class if the teacher drones on in a monotone voice, spending the entire class facing the whiteboard with his back to his students. Furthermore, a good teacher can change how much the good students excel, and how far behind the bad students fall. There will always be some students who do better than others, but the teacher absolutely does have an effect on how much they are learning. It's about much more than student involvement, and in any case, student involvement is not a constant. If it was, we could just replace all the teachers with a recording of the lesson and save a lot of money on salaries.

Research has shown that a good teacher can cover 1.5 years of material in a single school year, whereas a bad teacher may cover as little as 0.5 years. In other words, the quality of the teacher determines an entire year's worth of material each and every school year.
 
Last edited:
And to Justabubba ( I just knew some would fail to understand my comment about potentially paying a teacher who fails students more): The bit about failing relates to the above quote too. It's not about failing students to fail them. DOH! It's about holding kids back who haven't shown the skills to move to the next grade... and dragging those students down.

Instead of pushing illiterates along, failing a kid has an effect. On him and others. They get the message they are expected to succeed before moving on. It puts pressures on the kid to learn. It's a clear message. You can't just show up and expect to be moved along. If they don't care... then they can sit in the third grade for two or three years. Or take summer school to catch up. Believe me, they'll care. If not, we always need people to pick fruit and vegetables.

And Utah: Competition does work. If a school wants the finest teachers and pays them according to negotiations with the teacher (not some union scale), standards are elevated. Parents will notice. All boats will rise.

.
I agree that we should make failing kids repeat grades....but parents have a say in that.
My wife didn't compete, didn't have to, she just did a good job, and the other 2 K teachers looked bad in comparison, very bad.
The principal tried to fire her for not "following the curriculum" when she in fact had done exactly what was required, she just didn't quit after that. She didn't go slow, she had a years worth of work done in less than half a year. Kindergarten in Idaho was too easy, the requirements were the kind of thing that most 4 year old kids can do...
But, given a choice, getting the kids to compete is far more effective than getting teachers to compete...
 
A good teacher can certainly change the proportion of those who are listening. Of course kids are going to be falling asleep in class if the teacher drones on in a monotone voice, spending the entire class facing the whiteboard with his back to his students. Furthermore, a good teacher can change how much the good students excel, and how far behind the bad students fall. There will always be some students who do better than others, but the teacher absolutely does have an effect on how much they are learning. It's about much more than student involvement, and in any case, student involvement is not a constant. If it was, we could just replace all the teachers with a recording of the lesson and save a lot of money on salaries.

Research has shown that a good teacher can cover 1.5 years of material in a single school year, whereas a bad teacher may cover as little as 0.5 years. In other words, the quality of the teacher determines an entire year's worth of material each and every school year.

I never said that good teachers aren't part of the solution. They just are not the only part...
 
arrested? you are making that up....

I wish I was. There was a story about 5 years ago on Yahoo about a 5 year old student in New York City that was arrested for jumping into a puddle while standing in line to go back inside. I can't find a link to it, but I do remember reading about it.
 
I never said that good teachers aren't part of the solution. They just are not the only part...

True, but they are a larger factor than anything else over which the school has control.
 
One very glaring error in your philosophy....actually 2.....
We don't RECEIVE an education, we take it. When teachers teach 30 kids in one classroom, and some do well, and some do not, it is NOT the teachers fault. He/She puts the information out, but SOME kids are listening, and others or not....
And taxes? Taxes have been low for a decade or so, at least, thanks to Bush. Even letting the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will still be lower than when I went to public schools.

You're right in that they don't receive an education. They receive indoctrination of the state approved curriculum. I guess that you never considered that there are more taxes then just income taxes...
 
I wish I was. There was a story about 5 years ago on Yahoo about a 5 year old student in New York City that was arrested for jumping into a puddle while standing in line to go back inside. I can't find a link to it, but I do remember reading about it.
waiting to see it in print....but you said for "not listening"....you cannot be arrested for "crimes" that are not on the books...except in parts of the deep south where small towns make up their own laws willy nilly, or should I say Higglly Piggly.....

If you home school, why are you here, now?
 
waiting to see it in print....but you said for "not listening"....you cannot be arrested for "crimes" that are not on the books...except in parts of the deep south where small towns make up their own laws willy nilly, or should I say Higglly Piggly.....

If you home school, why are you here, now?

Yes, the child was told to stop jumping in the puddle and didn't listen. That's why he was arrested.

I pay property taxes, so I have a right to say what I want about public indoctrination centers. I also have the freedom of thought and expression. Let me guess I'm not allowed to express or think for myself that contradicts the public indoctrination centers?
 
You're right in that they don't receive an education. They receive indoctrination of the state approved curriculum. I guess that you never considered that there are more taxes then just income taxes...
I am 64 years old, been paying taxes since 1963. Year before last, we were in the top tax bracket.
I have even prepared taxes for others. I know plenty about taxes.
And your stale repetition of the word Indoctrination isn't getting you anywhere. IT just tells us that you don't like public schools, and we all figured that out the first time you said it.
again, what state are you in?
 
I am 64 years old, been paying taxes since 1963. Year before last, we were in the top tax bracket.
I have even prepared taxes for others. I know plenty about taxes.
And your stale repetition of the word Indoctrination isn't getting you anywhere. IT just tells us that you don't like public schools, and we all figured that out the first time you said it.
again, what state are you in?

If you know so much about taxes then why didn't you account for excise, sales, and other taxes that aren't income taxes?

If our schools actually taught something then we would be doing much better in literacy and in comparison with other countries. We're not and our literacy rates keep dropping. The only thing the schools do well is indoctrinate children to be unthinking drones that will follow orders unconditionally.

I'm under no obligation to tell you where I live at. I prefer to not reveal where I live at to a complete stranger.
 
Last edited:
True, but they are a larger factor than anything else over which the school has control.

That's the important bit. The kids aren't going to do any reading outside of class. I always thought the liberal-arts style of Socratic method teaching is the best for an inner city group of kids.
 
Yes, the child was told to stop jumping in the puddle and didn't listen. That's why he was arrested.

I pay property taxes, so I have a right to say what I want about public indoctrination centers. I also have the freedom of thought and expression. Let me guess I'm not allowed to express or think for myself that contradicts the public indoctrination centers?
You pay property taxes? so do I, on 2 houses. And the wife and I pay income taxes on a 6 figure income. We didn't get to where we are by attending "public indoctrination centers". I was raised a baptist, tho, in east Texas. Does that count?
 
If you know so much about taxes then why didn't you account for excise, sales, and other taxes that aren't income taxes?

If our schools actually taught something then we would be doing much better in literacy and in comparison with other countries. We're not and our literacy rates keep dropping. The only thing the schools do well is indoctrinate children to be unthinking drones that will follow orders unconditionally.

I'm under no obligation to tell you where I live at. I prefer to not reveal where I live at to a complete stranger.
Why should I? the topic is teacher pay based on years experience....it has been sidetracked to how we can make the schools better. Since you home school, you really don't have a stake in the education of other people's kids, do you?
 
Why should I? the topic is teacher pay based on years experience....it has been sidetracked to how we can make the schools better. Since you home school, you really don't have a stake in the education of other people's kids, do you?

I pay property taxes so yes this means I have a stake. Let me guess I'm not allowed to have freedom of expression and thought and that I'm to be a good little drone that follows orders without any critical thinking.
 
That's the important bit. The kids aren't going to do any reading outside of class. I always thought the liberal-arts style of Socratic method teaching is the best for an inner city group of kids.
I read all I could as a child, made a big difference. I even talked my parents into buying the World Book Encyclopedia, and I read most of it. Took me about 5 years, reading off and on...
Kandahar's point that I highlighted...over which the school has control is important to consider, especially for those who think teaching in public schools is easy. The schools really don't have any control over the community, not even when we "indoctrinate" their kids....:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom