5 ms·

Not sure what in GP you think is negative towards teachers. Sounds like you probably don’t have kids of your own. As a parent and tax payer I’d like to have my

Not sure what in GP you think is negative towards teachers. Sounds like you probably don’t have kids of your own. As a parent and tax payer I’d like to have my child taught in a school by competent people. Not via Zoom by someone who can’t understand that the risks are unbelievably low and kids are being damaged by missing out on school.

taeric 5y ago
GP is a fairly standard anti union stance against teachers. And, honestly, your post seems further in that direction. That is, you are furthering the narrative that many teachers are not competent, since they "can't understand the risks.". If they are that incompetent, why are they still teaching?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  We've arrived in a weird situation where we pay so little to teachers and yet require a high level of education, that we aren't attracting our best & brightest to the profession. I've still met some great teachers, but I've met a lot of glorified babysitters. It's infuriating.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    Public school teachers get paid plenty. Where I live ~68K is the average and they get summers off. Plus tenure.
    - swasheck 5y ago
      that only partially addresses one half of the comment though. additionally, “summers off” is a fairly common red herring that’s just designed to distract from the primary argument. this has nothing to do with time off or tenure so please stop trying to distract.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      How many people here on HN would consider 68K "plenty", and what percentage have a master's degree? Or even a bachelor's?
      - slibhb 5y ago
        Salary isn't based on which degrees you have, it's based on what job you're doing. It's inane to compare a computer programmer's salary to a teacher's salary. That aside, 68k is perfectly reasonable for a job with fantastic security, summers off, lots of vacation time where you get to work with children. Also, when I started working as a programmer, my salary was ~72k which is not much more and I had no trouble living off it. Of course the ceiling is higher for me but that's the market's doing.
        acdha 5y ago
        > summers off, lots of vacation time This comes at the expense of having absolutely no flexibility during the school year and usually plenty of long days & weekends, and summer has things like professional development / continuing education keeping it from being a long work-free block. It’s not bad but it’s not a compensation game changer. One other thing to remember: for a teacher, being out sick is almost as much work as a normal day. The tempo of a school year means that a lot of people need a couple weeks to unwind at the end of the year.
    - taeric 5y ago
      And where I live, 68k is... Probably not going to let you live in this area. :( I'm torn. Both sides of this debate can make pretty good arguments. And I'm particularly swayed by the arguments in Case Against Education. That said... What is the path forward? I'm just not seeing it.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        IMHO, for starters, we should be subsidizing essential workers*. Indexed to cost of living. If salary isn't over a threshold, relative to their workplace, they're eligible for subsidized housing (in a mixed-income development) and food. That we have necessary people unable to live in the communities they serve is insane. And if we're not going to address it from the salary side, at least we can do something from the expense side. * Where "essential worker" means any job fulfilling a social function in the local community. Teacher, nurse, police officer, firefighter etc.
        taeric 5y ago
        I'm not sure this works. Basically, sets up dire stakes to maintain a job for as long as you can, and makes perverse incentives on the auditing of the system. Cards on the table, I'm very keen on some sort of UBI. I also have doubts on much of the reporting I've seen surrounding it. I further think this needs a way to both double down in access and advancement for those with access, while further increasing funding and effort for those that don't. Main belief is that success affords more and more. Such that you want to double down in success, but you also need to use more of that success to lift up everyone.
- sqqqqrly 5y ago
  Because those teachers are publicly funded and many or even most parents cannot afford anything else.
  - taeric 5y ago
    Apologies, I meant my question mainly rhetorical. But I'm not seeing what direction this answer takes it. The premise above was that school choice could fix things. But, for places without capital, how?
    - swasheck 5y ago
      the primary argument against school choice/voucher systems is that it would implicitly recreate segregation across races and classes. there are counter arguments to this line of thinking, but that’s what i’ve heard as the primary argument against choice
      - taeric 5y ago
        Right, that argument is what I meant by places without capital. If you don't have the wealth to get your kids to a good school, what do you do? And, as a nation, are we ok with the current predominant answer?

taeric 5y ago

GP is a fairly standard anti union stance against teachers. And, honestly, your post seems further in that direction. That is, you are furthering the narrative that many teachers are not competent, since they "can't understand the risks.". If they are that incompetent, why are they still teaching?

rootusrootus 5y ago
We've arrived in a weird situation where we pay so little to teachers and yet require a high level of education, that we aren't attracting our best & brightest to the profession. I've still met some great teachers, but I've met a lot of glorified babysitters. It's infuriating.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Public school teachers get paid plenty. Where I live ~68K is the average and they get summers off. Plus tenure.
  - swasheck 5y ago
    that only partially addresses one half of the comment though. additionally, “summers off” is a fairly common red herring that’s just designed to distract from the primary argument. this has nothing to do with time off or tenure so please stop trying to distract.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    How many people here on HN would consider 68K "plenty", and what percentage have a master's degree? Or even a bachelor's?
    - slibhb 5y ago
      Salary isn't based on which degrees you have, it's based on what job you're doing. It's inane to compare a computer programmer's salary to a teacher's salary. That aside, 68k is perfectly reasonable for a job with fantastic security, summers off, lots of vacation time where you get to work with children. Also, when I started working as a programmer, my salary was ~72k which is not much more and I had no trouble living off it. Of course the ceiling is higher for me but that's the market's doing.
      - acdha 5y ago
        > summers off, lots of vacation time This comes at the expense of having absolutely no flexibility during the school year and usually plenty of long days & weekends, and summer has things like professional development / continuing education keeping it from being a long work-free block. It’s not bad but it’s not a compensation game changer. One other thing to remember: for a teacher, being out sick is almost as much work as a normal day. The tempo of a school year means that a lot of people need a couple weeks to unwind at the end of the year.
  - taeric 5y ago
    And where I live, 68k is... Probably not going to let you live in this area. :( I'm torn. Both sides of this debate can make pretty good arguments. And I'm particularly swayed by the arguments in Case Against Education. That said... What is the path forward? I'm just not seeing it.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      IMHO, for starters, we should be subsidizing essential workers*. Indexed to cost of living. If salary isn't over a threshold, relative to their workplace, they're eligible for subsidized housing (in a mixed-income development) and food. That we have necessary people unable to live in the communities they serve is insane. And if we're not going to address it from the salary side, at least we can do something from the expense side. * Where "essential worker" means any job fulfilling a social function in the local community. Teacher, nurse, police officer, firefighter etc.
      - taeric 5y ago
        I'm not sure this works. Basically, sets up dire stakes to maintain a job for as long as you can, and makes perverse incentives on the auditing of the system. Cards on the table, I'm very keen on some sort of UBI. I also have doubts on much of the reporting I've seen surrounding it. I further think this needs a way to both double down in access and advancement for those with access, while further increasing funding and effort for those that don't. Main belief is that success affords more and more. Such that you want to double down in success, but you also need to use more of that success to lift up everyone.
sqqqqrly 5y ago
Because those teachers are publicly funded and many or even most parents cannot afford anything else.
- taeric 5y ago
  Apologies, I meant my question mainly rhetorical. But I'm not seeing what direction this answer takes it. The premise above was that school choice could fix things. But, for places without capital, how?
  - swasheck 5y ago
    the primary argument against school choice/voucher systems is that it would implicitly recreate segregation across races and classes. there are counter arguments to this line of thinking, but that’s what i’ve heard as the primary argument against choice
    - taeric 5y ago
      Right, that argument is what I meant by places without capital. If you don't have the wealth to get your kids to a good school, what do you do? And, as a nation, are we ok with the current predominant answer?