How hard is teaching.

Good point.

 

Understand that a lot of us have market-driven professions, and that means we have to produce results or we get fired. Somebody selling flower seeds door-to-door can't blame customers who don't want to buy seeds. The reason why they were hired in the first place is to sell seeds. It's no disgrace to fail at selling seeds door-to-door, but you're not being paid to try and sell seeds.

You obviously feel that teaching is not market-driven, but I'm sure even teachers have these sorts of discussions between themselves. So why diss people who don't understand that this just isn't a possibility for some teachers?

Teaching is the job, and if you can't teach, then there's no shame in that. At least you tried.

 

Great post. And I think that because teachers aren't really held accoutable for their actions then nobody is invested in them. Hell, we even seen Hillary bumped out because folkd feel she didn't do a good job. And having people upset at you isn't the same as losing a job and having to support you familt in an alternate way.

 

The above answer seemed most appropriate.

 

Question. How can public schools produce greatly when they are low cost/low quality?

 

I'm confused about what your post means.

 

How is that supposed to happen when all we keep seeing posted is the parents don't understand the material?

 

Students only get kicked out of school for doing illegal things like fighting or theft.

As a general rule, kids don't get kicked out for talking, joking around, or being distractions. They sure as hell are not expelled for not wanting to learn, not wanting to pay attention, or not wanting to do the work.

 

When and why did that change?

 

When did it become so common to be so shallow and foolish as to think that the only things that are worth learning are taught in school?

When did it become so common to be so lazy as to think that government institutions should fulfill all requirements for preparation for life?

When did cowardice become so acceptable and normal that we don't expect derision for parents giving up on their responsibilities for their own kids?

 

I think it changed in the late 60's or early 70's when Title 1 and similar laws converted "free and appropriate education" from a privilege to a right. It made it seem normal for people to approach education with ingratitude and entitlement, to stop valuing one of the most valuable things our society provides to us.

As a result we allow people to damage our schools from inside, and ensure the ungrateful and entitled continue their careless sabotage.

 

I don't disagree. But since everyone has to go to school there has to be some sort of accountability. Because it looks like they're just spitting out idiots who become parents who can't study or even parent their own children. Then the cycle repeats itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Who are the entitled and ungrateful? The mentally disabled? The minorities? And I remember school being better in the 70's and 80's. So it took 30 years to have a negative impact?

 

Two of my childhood friends, a brother and a sister who became teachers both quit in the late 60's claiming it was just too dangerous. One taught in New Jersey and the other in New York City. So the problem seems to have began 50 or so years ago. There are good and bad teachers and good and bad students, some people improve, some remain the same, and some become worse. The same is true of those who not teachers, or students. Progress in a positive direction usually occurs as a result of competition accompanied by freedom to choose.

 

So the competition has gone away? And the ability to chose?

 

Why can't they get talented teachers?

 

Has much competition ever existed in the public school system? Is public funding made available to enrol in a private school?

 

Yeah man the unions suck. Fire all the workers and hire new ones, that ought to do it.

 

I asked you? You said it changed in the 60s. Was there competition before then?

 

I said teaching became more dangerous in the 60's, nothing to do with competition.
I never said there was much competition to begin with, but when I was young families often moved based on the school quality where their children would attend, as did my parents.
What I was suggesting is that we need to provide some competition allowing parents and students a choice of where to go to school, publicly funded, and if that eventually results in all schools becoming private, so be it. The primary function of a mandatory school system should be to educate, not indoctrinate, the students providing them with what knowledge is needed to earn a living and make rational decisions.

 

Ok. Sorry I misunderstood. I agree!! That's what other countries do. And yes, without competition all entities go stale!! That's why sports is always exciting for the most part. If you don't stay on top of your game you get surpassed.

 

It may be one of the options.

 

Can't this be changed?

 

I'm so confused!

 

What? Then why go to school?

 

blaming the teachers for the failure of the education system is the same as blaming the steel workers for the failure of the Tacoma narrows bridge. The steel workers on the bridge may have been terrible. They may have been the best in the business. Regardless of their skill the bridge was going to fall down.

If the design of the thing is poor that is what must be first fixed.

So fix the education model first and then your complaints about the teachers can have meaning.