Better, but is the root cause of most problems being a single parent, or the lower financial income that generally accompanies that?Problems found in the single-parent household may not be because of the parent who raised these children, but can be linked to other things that are also related to single parenting. It has been pointed out that when there is only one parent, the family is often less well off financially and this is the main reason for so many family problems. Reports show that the effects of coming from a low-income family can include things like lower education levels, lower economic achievement and can result in leaving the child feeling isolated and lonely. Being a single parent and struggling for money often coincide. It is also true that children of one-parent households are generally less supervised, their actions are less monitored and there is usually less communication between the child and parent. It would appear that being a part of a single-parent household indicates a negative family environment. It should be said however that many single-parent families find a balance and successfully thrive in today's world.
It is quite possible to compensate for the worst effects of not having the other spouse with things like extended and on-demand daycare.
The composition of welfare recipients has been shown to you.
"welfare" has work requirements to be eligible to recieve, unless you are physically disabled or too old to work. Most don't even stay on the program.
How do you reconcile this data with your blanket statement?
Do we toss those disabled people who physically can't work out to starve too?
And yes, I am horrible about sticking to my ignore lists. I should just quit making that promise altogether.
Mea culpa.
You just can't quit me, can you?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
53% is spent on people who look like this:
Look at that filthy lazy woman, just sitting there taking my money. She should be starving in the streets, right vy?
20% is spent on people who look like this:
Yet another worthless human being making bad choices like sitting in that ing chair all day.
18% is spent on people who look like this:
Look at that! She obviously needs to be tossed out in the trash as well. Too lazy to look for a better job with all that spare time I bet she has.
So now we have the real s bags, the 9% is spend on people who don't fall into those categories...
I bet they stay on these programs for their entire lives, just soaking up my hard earned tax money, just having kids year after year that they can't afford...
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Total amount of time spent on Aid to Families with Dependent Children for five years or less:
80.4%
No. Your ignorance and lack of morals/humanity make you an easy target.
Again, mea culpa.
"ignorance and lack of morals/humanity"
applies to all extreme right wingers, all their politician, meriting REPUGnant.
ROFL no more football team + more money = better test scores. Sometimes I'd like to take a shot of this Kool-Aid.
BTW do yall know any teachers? Sure, just pay them more that's the ticket LOL
no, it's not. more intensive training as a higher barrier to entry to the profession, to disqualify.
I'm for grants to teachers for the education. And just like college-level ROTC or the military academies, govt pays the teachers' education, secondary and beyond, AND obligates the teachers to teach for 15 years. Leave before 15 years, and you owe pro rata the cost of the education. Drop out of govt-funded education or fail to obtain diplomas, you pay the education costs.
I'd also block any principal or other key administrator from those posts if they haven't had at least 10 years in the classroom. No more MBA/business administrators with no clue about the classroom.
Train them better, and so on. Education majors aren't engineers; there's no changing that fact.
Ah, the Left and its fascination with education. I look forward to the future with my garbage man who can do calculus.
It's little surprise that 'the right' prefers people to be ignorant.
The issue with math comes far before calculus. The early disconnect with math comes in primary school typically with fractions. English and history comes with a lot of why in addition to content. Math all too often is learned as rote. I have gotten kids through trig and algebra starting with an explanation for the basis of polynomials. It's much the same reason why classical mechanics and integration should be taught at the same time. That is besides the point though.
I am an engineer and I would be a teacher if the profession paid worth a flip. I tutored kids as an undergrad and loved it. The issue is compensation.
straw man, You Lie
Not all teenagers belong in high school. Compulsory universal education has a downside for education.
why shouldn't a k-12 teacher have the same intellectual capacities, intelligence, education, respect for his profession, and salary as an engineer in the $70K - $100K range?
This.
Trade schools; educate (at least some) to a profession not an abstract universal threshold of knowledge. Germany is doing a pretty darn good job; a great model.
In our district, they have the salary. It's the other traits listed that are lacking. Education degree != engineering degree.
Our science and math departments are full of "Science Education" and "Math Education" degrees; NOT real scientists or mathematicians! Why not a B.S. in Chemistry? Because they can't take and pass the classes for REAL scientists. They run to the education department, get a whole new set of classes (and professors, btw).
I agree - the salaries SHOULD be high enough to attract better, more intelligent teachers; and they ARE that high in our district (again STARTING salary for all teachers with a BA or BS is $63,000!). Of course education degrees are REQUIRED - that keeps the ACTUAL professionals, many with advanced degrees, out of the compe ion for teacher's jobs. Once they have those jobs, also, they are nigh untouchable. Our district has been shrinking for a couple of decades (from 3800 students in '90 to about 2100 now); but the district isn't allowed to shape the makeup of teachers fit what is needed to teach the students. If a bunch of English teachers retire, but no Coaches do? Can't let some PE teachers go to hire English ones; now you've got a six figure salaried wrestling coach teaching English Lit!!!
My daughter currently has a Home Economics teacher "teaching" her Algebra, and a Visual Media teacher teaching her "History". Both of these individuals make of 90K per year; both classes are a joke.
The problem is NOT money; it is systemic - and varies from District to District. In some, as RG eloquently points out, it IS money; in others it is bad priorities - in ours, it's ed up DESPITE the fact that we currently are paying 17 grand per year per student to educate our kids. The big mask here is that SO many of the students are children of professors (15 thousand student university in a 30 thousand population town) - those kids succeed regardless. They also get good enough test scores, and provide a steady stream of IVY league and other elite post-secondary success to allow the district to feel elite, even though it's actually a wasteful disaster. I could simply blame the union, but it's deeper than that, the school board has never actually held the line on the CBA to even MAKE the union strike; they simply pretty much cave every 4 years to whatever demands the union makes. This summer it comes up again; we'll see where it goes...
It is a fairly straightforward thing to show. Here are some sane discussions and information from the proponents.
http://opportunityculture.org/reach/pay-teachers-more/
http://www.teacherfinance.org/2012/1...underpaid.html
But the economics are pretty straight-forward:
Increase demand/price point for a given good/service and you will get more of it. Pretty fundamental law of economics that no one disputes.
Increase demand and pay for more talented, smart people to become teachers, and you will get more talented smart people to become teachers.
Talented, smart people tend to be more efficient and proficient at their jobs than less talented, smart people.
It really is that simple, IMO.
A bit more on the topic from people who aren't raging activists:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jona...ison-usa-korea
Some quantification:
http://epi.3cdn.net/05447667bb274f359e_zam6br3st.pdf
From what I have seen, the balance of evidence indicates we should most definitely pay more. Especially since money invested in better teachers means a better educated, more innovative workforce, which has some very decidedly positive long term effects. A no-brainer, IMO.
The American Myth that everybody can become wealthy if they just work hard enough and go to college is part of the denigration of HS vocational training. Europe has tracked their students for decades, into academic or vocational/tech 2ndary schools. But American keeps pushing the myth that only the academic HS track, which must not be denied, AND college is the ticket to The American Myth, not welding or machine shop classes.
whatever the social benefit, at bottom human potential is being tailored to more or less well-defined social needs: this jars with the narrative of individual liberty and bootstrap promotion and "equal opportunity for all."
Not really...101 has been known to exaggerate his figures just a little...
Do some research on your own..
Yep....some kids don't appreciate an education so they act up and become a distraction in class to students who want to learn..but in poor districts you could have a class of 25 and have a handful of non-english speakers, a few (or more) kids with serious physiological,emotional, and behavioral issues that have little to do with the effectiveness of a teacher in any given year...
^ I agree, some school districts just have less intelligent kids dues to their less intelligent parents. Zing!
lol at being illogicalCorrelation is not Causation
Last edited by SupremeGuy; 11-25-2013 at 04:17 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
