I'm against what the teachers' unions have become, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

krellin, your lesson plan argument is true, but only for bad teachers. Good teachers realize that the same lesson plans and curriculum doesn't work for different classes, depending on the mix of high achieving, low achieving, and mainstreamed students. It takes quite a bit of work to create lesson plans that will engage an entire class but simultaneously individualize enough so that low achieving students do not get left behind and high achieving students do not get frustrated and bored. Teachers who use the same plans every year are the same ones who complain about standards, testing, parents, and administration and who also hide behind unions. Unfortunately, there are a lot more teachers like this than you realize. We can go on for days about this, but the main reason is that teaching just doesn't attract the best students out of school. Its sad, because teaching really is a challenging field, but its only as challenging as you make it.

"krellin, your lesson plan argument is true, but only for bad teachers"
"Teachers who use the same plans every year are the same ones who complain"

...eh hem...I rest my case....

The good teachers actually ARE in it for the love of kids and the job, and not all about the money, and are not the ones bitching all the time...I've known both kind, both as a student, as the neighbor of a teacher, with teachers as family friends, and now with two high school students of my own. The teachers teh *literally* complain to their students (IN CLASS!) are generally the most worthless "educators" (and it happens far more often than it should - probably 15% of their teachers over the years, have complained IN CLASS to students about their jobs/pay/etc)

" teaching just doesn't attract the best students out of school."

Clearly...this is quite evident in the lack of knowledge/teaching skills demonstrated by many. I look back on the people I knew in college going in to education...ugh...I wouldn't have let *any* of those bimbos near my kids!! Generally blithering idiots who didn't have good enough grades/scores to get in to other colleges in the univerisity...

"Its sad, because teaching really is a challenging field, but its only as challenging as you make it. "

As challenging as you make....less challenging than you think...

All in all, NOT a resounding argument that teachers are underpaid....

I never said that teachers are underpaid. I'm saying you get what you pay for. If education is a problem in this country, which it clearly is, trying to squeeze more results out of an underperforming workforce while cutting budgets and salaries is not the way to do it.

All my old classmates who are now teachers became such because they wanted their summers off. Now they bitch about getting three quarters the pay. You got 1/4 of the year off! What the fuck do you want?

Who goes into teaching because they want the summer off? Do you actually listen to them? Do you think they actually represent what a teacher is supposed to be? They are the ones that the teachers don't like, Draug. They're the ones that can't stand kids and think they are a bunch of spoiled brats as opposed to a real teacher that takes every kid on an individual level and learns about them to figure out what the best course for them is. The real teachers don't take the summers off anyway - they do something productive with it, just like every other good worker in every other industry does during their slow time.

"They're the ones that can't stand kids and think they are a bunch of spoiled brats ..."

Huh...funnny, that's *exactly* what Putin has said about the kids before...

And honestly, what moron 8doesn't* believe that's a motivating factor for going in to teaching. Any teacher that *doesn't* admit that's something that appealed to them is just a god-damned liar...otherwise they would all be *fighting* to teach the summer classes...

I'm not here to make this personal. All I'm saying is that old classmates that became teachers in order to get summers off are a) delusional, and b) terrible teachers. If you want to get into a bitch fight with Putin, do it by PM.

Krellin, it's a perk. A lot of jobs have perks. You don't go into them because of the perks, though.

Sorry, bo-ster, your experience with people that went in to education is exactly....what?

As for Putin, it's not a "bitch fight" - it's a fucking FACT that he said it,and he is an "educator". Sorry if you don't like truth.

As an *adult*, you actually get to meet teachers socially -- they are your kids friends, they live in the community, hang out at the park with their kids while you are at work, you meet them at the soccer games and softball games, etc...I know plenty of teachers.

As I said, *if* your assertion is true -- that they really hate having summers off -- they would all find teaching opportunities in the summer, even if they were volunteer gigs. as it stands, there's a lot of teachers doing not a whole lot during the summer...sorry to break your delusion with reality.

I don't fault them for taking summers off - don't get me wrong - all power to them. But they're insistence that they get paid for full time work for a part time job is ludicrous.

But, you parrot your brain-washed mantras about the glories and wonders of teachers quite well.

bo - people take jobs ALL THE TIME because of the perks. Good lord, you are utterly ridiculous.

You know what some of the seeling points of companies like Google and Facebook and other tech start-ups are? THE FUCKING PERKS.

If you get in to it JUST for the advanced technology, then some of the coolest cutting edge shit is happening in the automotive industry - high tech shit bumper to bumper.

You are so cute when you pretend you know why people take jobs. lol

Oh okay, so to you, I said teachers "really hate having the summers off." That's what I said. Sure...... try rereading.

This is why people don't give you a cordial response on here, krellin.

Well, that, and the fact that you call Putin and others horrible things on a day-to-day basis even though he's told you time and time again that he's offended by it.

@PE

Unions give to democrats? Shocking.

I mean it says right on the second line, superpacs aren't included in this stat. Add those in and your point not only becomes moot, it shows the opposite.

Yes, there are large moneyed interests favoring the democrats - absolutely no doubt there. But nothing in this stat supports your claim that liberals have a larger financial base. They just receive more direct support (read: accountable support).

You can do better than this, PE.

From the very link...

"Contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a Heavy Hitter, however the totals below do include contributions by Heavy Hitters to such groups, as well as contributions to candidates, parties, Leadership PACs and other committees."

I've been commenting on the totals, not individual organizations' statuses as "heavy hitters." So yes, accounting for SuperPACs, Democrats still have substantially more money to throw around.

False.

The total reported only includes the money that the so called "heavy hitters" directly or indirectly (through pacs, etc) contribute directly to the party itself. They do not include money spent by PACs "on behalf" of the parties.



Now I admit this does beg two questions...

1) How does this outside PAC money compare in quantity to the amount reported?

and

2) How does one determine at which point these outside contributions are "in favor" of a particular candidate

Neither of which I can provide the answer to. Still, in the absence of the data, to claim that the dems have vastly more money working for them while only examining this portion is a bit disingenuous.

Ahh.. here we are:

Superpacs alone:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals

Combined statistics:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Pro Dem ads barely outspent the republicans last cycle. Note also the vast disparity in favor of the republicans in the form of these "free for all" superpacs that are not held to account for the veracity of their statements. Note also that the Democrats had a majority of their individual donations coming in $200 or less increments, while the republicans had a plurality their money from those making "maximum" donations. That is to say that the poor "grassroots" donations go the the Democrats favorably.

All of these statistics support the truth of the democrat complaint with which you take issue.

Correction: Dems RAISED more money.

Republicans spent more.

@bo - Don't get angry with me. I'm just reporting the anecdotal evidence observed at my 10th, 20th, and 25th class reunions. Get angry at them for ruining your delusion that most teachers care. They don't.

There are plenty of public school teachers that care. I'm simply saying that you shouldn't get your image of a teacher from them, just as you wouldn't want someone to get a perspective of your job from someone who sucks at it.

Not enough good teachers, unfortunately. And I already have to deal with people who think all programmers are like Wayne Knight (of Seinfeld and Jurassic Park fame) or Boris from GoldenEye.