• 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?

  • Yes, they should be paid more each year they teach.

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • No (please explain how you think they should be paid)

    Votes: 29 90.6%
  • Total voters
    32
Harry Guerrilla said:
To be fair, the literacy rate in the mid to late 1800s went from around 70% to 80 or 90%, can't remember off the top of my head.
That was for whites, for blacks it was much lower but still increasing.
Click to expand...
I think your numbers are a bit off, but......
Yes, by the mid to late 19th century, factory owners had learned that a certain amount of education was desired for the workers. It is harder to train an uneducated person for a job. Once we started moving away from manual and unskilled labor, an education became an asset.
 
Layla_Z said:
I agree that parents shouldn't be able to refuse, but they can.

First, I never said anyone was a lost cause. You need to remember that we are talking about people not some raw material that is consistent. If school adminstrators would take the time to analyze data the way you've described I might agree to using that data to help determine salary along with experience and education. However, I don't think that is what would happen.
Click to expand...

They need not do it themselves. IBM and Oracle both offer data analytic services that are cheap, for no more data than an individual school would have.
 
UtahBill said:
Let's see here, Patriot, very conservative, calls schools indoctrination centers....
and you have a slanted view on history....
How could parents teach their kids when most of them, the parents, couldn't read? IT would work well for the rich. To keep educating only the rich and let the poor remain ignorant might suit the business world of the 18th century, but it won't work now.
Click to expand...

Historical documentation doesn't support you. Here is this tidbit from the article Education in Colonial America.

The results of colonial America’s free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. The educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of articulate Americans who could grapple with the complex problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are seldom read or understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by the common man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.[36] A study conducted in 1800 by DuPont de Nemours revealed that only four in a thousand Americans were unable to read and write legibly.[37] Various accounts from colonial America support these statistics. In 1772, Jacob Duche, the Chaplain of Congress, later turned Tory, wrote:[38]

36. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education (Nutley, N.J.: The Craig Press, 1963, 1979), p. 330.
Click to expand...
Link

I call public schools government indoctrination centers because that is what they are designed to do. They are designed not to teach, but to allocate a certain percentage of students into certain job classes and to teach the students to follow orders with no creative or intellectual thought allowed. I suggest you read Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. It's free.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I didn't say that any monkey could teach; I certainly wouldn't know where to begin. (What *is* insulting, is your implication that people without 4-year degrees are monkeys, though.)
Click to expand...

I did not say that and I never would. It's a shame that you can't engage in a discussion without that kind of garbage!

I'm sure there are many people who would make excellent teachers without multiple degrees. I also know that those people could be even better with training. Teaching is more than being great with kids. It is knowledge of a subject, knowledge of how to teach, classroom management, brain theory, learning styles, and so many more topics. Teaching a small group of motivated kids is completely different from teaching 30 apathetic kids. When I say education I don't just mean sitting in a classroom earning degrees. I mean training in the most current teaching techniques.
 
Kandahar said:
They need not do it themselves. IBM and Oracle both offer data analytic services that are cheap, for no more data than an individual school would have.
Click to expand...
IBM and Oracle will not do it for free, so taxes will go up...
 
Kandahar said:
They need not do it themselves. IBM and Oracle both offer data analytic services that are cheap, for no more data than an individual school would have.
Click to expand...

Where would the money come for that? Who would run it?
 
Layla_Z said:
I did not say that and I never would. It's a shame that you can't engage in a discussion without that kind of garbage!

I'm sure there are many people who would make excellent teachers without multiple degrees. I also know that those people could be even better with training. Teaching is more than being great with kids. It is knowledge of a subject, knowledge of how to teach, classroom management, brain theory, learning styles, and so many more topics. Teaching a small group of motivated kids is completely different from teaching 30 apathetic kids. When I say education I don't just mean sitting in a classroom earning degrees. I mean training in the most current teaching techniques.
Click to expand...

I've studied American History for 27 years now using primary source documentation. I do not have a degree, but when I was in college my knowledge of American History surpassed that of my professor who had a phd in the subject. A degree is not an indication of knowledge, but that you have sat x amount of time in a seat taking x, y, and z courses that are required for that particular degree.
 
Layla_Z said:
I did not say that and I never would. It's a shame that you can't engage in a discussion without that kind of garbage!

I'm sure there are many people who would make excellent teachers without multiple degrees. I also know that those people could be even better with training. Teaching is more than being great with kids. It is knowledge of a subject, knowledge of how to teach, classroom management, brain theory, learning styles, and so many more topics. Teaching a small group of motivated kids is completely different from teaching 30 apathetic kids. When I say education I don't just mean sitting in a classroom earning degrees. I mean training in the most current teaching techniques.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good...if there's any evidence that training in the most current teaching techniques actually improves student performance. Maybe there is evidence for that conclusion, but I've never seen any.
 
UtahBill said:
IBM and Oracle will not do it for free, so taxes will go up...
Click to expand...

Which would be fine if it improved student performance. But the services are not particularly expensive.
 
Layla_Z said:
Where would the money come for that?
Click to expand...

From the school? Analyzing raw data from a couple thousand students, and a hundred or so teachers, isn't time-consuming or expensive.

Layla_Z said:
Who would run it?
Click to expand...

That gives me a marvelous idea for a new business venture.
 
The_Patriot said:
Historical documentation doesn't support you. Here is this tidbit from the article Education in Colonial America.

Link

I call public schools government indoctrination centers because that is what they are designed to do. They are designed not to teach, but to allocate a certain percentage of students into certain job classes and to teach the students to follow orders with no creative or intellectual thought allowed. I suggest you read Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. It's free.
Click to expand...
Google history of literacy rates, and you will find all kinds of conflict with your highlighted quote about literacy rates...
 
The_Patriot said:
I've studied American History for 27 years now using primary source documentation. I do not have a degree, but when I was in college my knowledge of American History surpassed that of my professor who had a phd in the subject. A degree is not an indication of knowledge, but that you have sat x amount of time in a seat taking x, y, and z courses that are required for that particular degree.
Click to expand...

A degree is not solely an indication of knowledge. I would agree. However, it can be a good indication of a person's training in how to do a job. I also know that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. I haven't been clear. Good teachers get training well beyond any degrees. Even teachers with a doctorate still attend workshops, conferences, and seminars to try to improve. This behavior should be rewarded.
 
Kandahar said:
From the school? Analyzing raw data from a couple thousand students, and a hundred or so teachers, isn't time-consuming or expensive.



That gives me a marvelous idea for a new business venture.
Click to expand...
Well you be sure and let us know when you are going public..:2razz:
 
Kandahar said:
That's all well and good...if there's any evidence that training in the most current teaching techniques actually improves student performance. Maybe there is evidence for that conclusion, but I've never seen any.
Click to expand...

If you haven't seen any, then you haven't looked.
 
Layla_Z said:
A degree is not solely an indication of knowledge. I would agree. However, it can be a good indication of a person's training in how to do a job. I also know that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. I haven't been clear. Good teachers get training well beyond any degrees. Even teachers with a doctorate still attend workshops, conferences, and seminars to try to improve. This behavior should be rewarded.
Click to expand...
There are a few well educated people without degrees, I am sure, but I won't risk MY children's education taking a chance with someone who is too lazy to go to college....
 
Kandahar said:
From the school? Analyzing raw data from a couple thousand students, and a hundred or so teachers, isn't time-consuming or expensive.



That gives me a marvelous idea for a new business venture.
Click to expand...
Schools have no extra money. Should the money come from textbooks, maybe busing, oh wait I know - teacher salaries.
 
Layla_Z said:
When this was true reading, writing, and arithmitic were all a child needed. Most parents do not have the knowledge necessary to prepare their child for college. Additionally, much more is known about how to teach. Teachers are trained in how to teach kids according to how they learn best. Would you like to go back to the medical practices of the time you describe? Me either.
Click to expand...

Do most children need algebra or any advanced mathematics? Do most children need to learn specialized knowledge from any of the sciences? I can tell you from my experience in my long life that I don't use algebra, any of the sciences, etc... The only thing I use that I learned in school was basic math, writing, and reading. I had to reteach myself American history since schools do not teach the truth about it.
 
Layla_Z said:
A degree is not solely an indication of knowledge. I would agree. However, it can be a good indication of a person's training in how to do a job. I also know that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. I haven't been clear. Good teachers get training well beyond any degrees. Even teachers with a doctorate still attend workshops, conferences, and seminars to try to improve. This behavior should be rewarded.
Click to expand...

None of the classes I took for my teaching degree prepared me for doing actual teaching. When my mom went for her teaching degree it was just knowledge subjects. The only time she received training for being in the classroom was during her practicum where she was actually teaching under an existing teacher.
 
Last edited:
Layla_Z said:
If you haven't seen any, then you haven't looked.
Click to expand...

I've actually looked quite a bit for what improves student results, but I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that more training has an effect. Perhaps you can link me to the study to which you are referring.
 
The_Patriot said:
Do most children need algebra or any advanced mathematics? Do most children need to learn specialized knowledge from any of the sciences? I can tell you from my experience in my long life that I don't use algebra, any of the sciences, etc... The only thing I use that I learned in school was basic math, writing, and reading. I had to reteach myself American history since schools do not teach the truth about it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree about history....it is so watered down as to be almost useless....
but math? I can say it is over done for many careers. But, it needs to be available for those going on to college to become engineers, scientists, technicians. Math is taught to all because very few kids know by age 14 or so what they want to do with their lives. They might skip math, and later change their minds, and will need remedial training before a college will take them...
 
Layla_Z said:
Schools have no extra money. Should the money come from textbooks, maybe busing, oh wait I know - teacher salaries.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter where the money comes from. We're talking maybe $20,000 at most for a LARGE school. That isn't going to break the bank. Asking where a school could come up with the pittance that useful data analysis would cost - especially when the schools have no problem employing incompetent teachers, and you're talking about training them all in the latest teaching methods - is a red herring. The cost is tiny.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Do most children need algebra or any advanced mathematics? Do most children need to learn specialized knowledge from any of the sciences? I can tell you from my experience in my long life that I don't use algebra, any of the sciences, etc... The only thing I use that I learned in school was basic math, writing, and reading. I had to reteach myself American history since schools do not teach the truth about it.
Click to expand...

Students need a well rounded education. Will this include some things they might not use in adult life? Yes, it will. Students need to learn how to learn and how to continue learning throughout life. There is so much a good, well-trained teacher can offer a student but teachers are notthe same as parents. It is a completely different role.
 
UtahBill said:
Oh, I agree about history....it is so watered down as to be almost useless....
but math? I can say it is over done for many careers. But, it needs to be available for those going on to college to become engineers, scientists, technicians. Math is taught to all because very few kids know by age 14 or so what they want to do with their lives. They might skip math, and later change their minds, and will need remedial training before a college will take them...
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the Prussian style system that we have. It's focused on the needs of the country as a whole while ignoring the needs of the students. Is it any wonder that Sylvan Learning Centers are outperforming public indoctrination? Back when I was in school the push was for scientists based upon the perceived need for them in the late 50's and 60's. I was in high school in the mid to late 80's. The government, and by extension businesses, cannot meet the educational needs of kids.
 
Kandahar said:
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from. We're talking maybe $20,000 at most for a LARGE school. That isn't going to break the bank.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many textbooks $20,000 would buy? That money would nearly pay for a teacher's aid. What a waste of money that would be. Teachers do data analysis now on test scores. They usually do this after school, beyond their contracted day. They do it not evaluate what they should be paid but how to better help their students.
 
Layla_Z said:
Students need a well rounded education. Will this include some things they might not use in adult life? Yes, it will. Students need to learn how to learn and how to continue learning throughout life. There is so much a good, well-trained teacher can offer a student but teachers are notthe same as parents. It is a completely different role.
Click to expand...

Kids are born with an innate ability to learn so no you do not have to teach that. Schooling numbs and kills the creative minds of the kids so they will follow orders and obey whoever is in charge. I remember that well from my 13 years in public indoctrination. Our schools perform worse out of the industrial world because it's not designed to teach, but to get kids to be good little robots and follow orders. This is why you see on the news all the time about students being arrested for jumping in puddles and not minding a teacher. Also, the student must be interested in learning those subjects and naturally will have a well rounded education as evidenced by the way charter and certain private schools are run. The student decides what classes they want to take because it interests them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom