Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

But what people don't realize is that for home schooling to really work you need a lot of money to pay for private extra-curricular activities (if there are no community ones that you don't need to pay for) or classes that parents can't teach. That's how students end up with such bad people skills. They stay home all day and study and don't have the socialization. They kids that do are kids with jobs or people well off or lucky to have other means for socialization (such as the one poster who mentioned her sister got those through her parents exchanging other things instead of money).

Well, actually my Mom got scholarships for things by asking. And the barter thing actually was just me explaining how poor we were and that we didn't have actual money to go around. We never used barter for activities though. they were either free or we got in on scholarship.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I spent a year in a brick and mortar public school, but I haven't been homeschooled since 8th grade, so it's not like I'm a stranger to indoctrination. Some schools may have problems but I think the problem of political influencing is worse than religious influencing, and I do have reasoning for this.

Teachers almost everywhere are unionized, and of the dues that unions give to political parties, 98% go to democratic party. The democratic party then turns around and gives money and entitlements and the like. You can disagree if you like, I'm not going to debate this because for 1 it's not really on topic and 2, I know there's proof out there but I don't feel like running it down for this side note. Anyways, my point is that Teachers could personally benefit from influencing students to vote one way or another, while religiously influencing someone does not benefit the teacher really in any way. So while it may be annoying to hear about it in class, the intentions of the teachers I think are a bit different.

And just so everyone knows, I'm going to college to be a Math teacher. ;) But I'm not into indoctrination, which is why I'm doing math. haha.

You only spent a year in public school so I'm not sure that gives you a good view of what they're like. Plus, every public school is a little different, varying form state to state and even town to town. Even within the same town there can be differences in what the administration allows. Some schools will have sex ed in high school, but some simply preach abstinence and don't really discuss it otherwise.

Religious influence benefits the teacher because people like people that think the way they do. And just because you're teaching math doesn't mean you can't "indoctrinise" others, although I don't think you should anyways. Personal views have no place in the classroom. Also, I think you'll find if you teach in a public school that's it's very different than how YOU seem to be imagining it, especially on the other side of the fence. And what do you imagine the intentions of the teachers ARE then if not to teach the kids to think in their way about religion and such?

----------

Oh, also I don;t think indoctrination is quite as rampant as you seem to think. Even my teachers that share their political views made sure that they didn't influence us, merely stated them. And they stated reasons why, they didn't merely try to make the other candidate look stupid. And it was only one teacher, in an honors class where he knew we could think for ourselves.

Where did you find that statistic, Hayzel? --Because without proof, I'm going to disregard any statements you've tried to support with said evidence.

I've found one that lists only 89% of the money that goes towards anything political towards democratic candidates.
And not 98% of ALL dues going to political endeavors. In fact, administration and representation (of the union) take up a LOT of the money that unions take in.

Edit: Also, I actually think it is on topic, part of the reason some kids get home schooled is because parents fear their kids being exposed to ideas they may not agree with.
Political parties can be included in that, IMO.

I'm assuming your first statement is referring to the 98% statistic in which you need to re-read what I said. First of all, I said there was proof but I didn't feel like digging it up and I wasn't going to debate it because it was just a side note. Second I said of 98% all the union dues that GO TO political parties go to democratic parties, not ALL the union dues. Please read what I say carefully before making judgements, thank you. And according to your reference it's 93% and quite frankly seeing as I was quoting that number from memory it's not that far off. =/ Give me a break here, I was only 5% off.

If you were only home-schooled through middle school, and you only went to one year of public school, deductive reasoning would suggest that you spent the other 3 years in private school, which is not run, operated, or approached the same way as public school.

Private schools do not receive their entire budget through government funding, the way public schools do (private schools have trustees and benefactors.)

Actually no. I've spent 3 years in public school, and 1 in private. I've only spent 1 year in a brick and mortar public school, my cyber school is a public school. :)

And if you're intending to be a teacher, then you need to be informed of one thing above all others: teachers. are poor. Unless you get a nice tenure position at a private school or you intend to teach math in college, teachers make...so little it hurts. And if it weren't for education unions they'd probably make a whole lot less.

The average teacher's salary is actually above the average salary in the U.S., and they get summers off. Also my father makes ALOT less than a teacher and we live just fine. It's just a matter of how you manage finances and priorities. I'm not uninformed. Although I do think it's unfair that having a certain job will force me to pay to a political party I really don't agree with. Personally if you want to increase my salary, don't make me pay union dues! But ah well, that's for another debate. This is still primarily about homeschooling.

And at the risk of being rude, the "teachers indoctrinating students to vote along with a political agenda" point is going to be a hard sell, especially when you consider the ABYSMAL number of people who vote in this country between the ages of 18-21. Turnout in that demographic is such a problem that the government turns to celebrities and corporations like MTV in an effort to get a fraction of the voting-age young adults to show up at the polls at all...and since the only year it could POSSIBLY have any effect statistically would be senior year of high school (since you can't vote until you're 18) it kind of seems like...throwing a teaspoon of water on a bonfire. Not much effect. Not enough to be statistically significant.

Whether or not it's statistically significant, it's still wrong. And if enough teacher do it then it could become statistically significant.

Unless you're suggesting that teachers are subversively and slowly over time directing students to vote a certain way, which involves a MASSIVE conspiracy: an active collective intention among hundreds of thousands of educators, administrators, and union officials, to subvert both the democratic and educational systems in the country to advance ONE party's agenda. And I hope you're not actually suggesting that.

No, I wasn't implying that at all. In fact, I didn't bring up teachers trying to sway seniors to vote, I was merely commenting that I think politically influencing students is more wrong that religiously influencing students was all. Please don't read into it any more than that.

If you're going to quote statistics, I would ask to see your sources, as a great deal of statistics are made up on the spot. If you're not going to cite the source for a statistic, then I ask you not to use statistics.

It was just a number a I heard. *sigh* I told you guys I wasn't going to debate it, nor was I holding anything in it and I wouldn't argue it, it was just a side point. Besides, someone else found a statistic that basically says the same thing with a 5% difference.

More importantly, if you're going to come into a debate thread, make a point and state, in your argument, that you're not going to bother to back your argument up and that you're not going to debate it...then you're missing the point of a debate. It's argument, support, counterargument, support. Not...I'm going to make my point and then close the matter. If you're not willing to support or discuss something you're going to say, then don't say it.

My... jeeze it was probably the SMALLEST point of something I just wanted to put out there. Excuse me but I've been very good about quoting sources and the one time I don't I even explicitly stated I don't have a source, and didn't feel like looking for it. I know I heard it on the news and it was just something I found interesting. I know how to debate and if you would read what I said I specifically stated, I DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE IT. -.-;; So instead of focusing on the smallest aspect, which has now pretty much been proven, can we please look at the big picture here?

I really do not appreciate people reading additional meanings into what I try to say, or how people keep twisting what I'm saying to make it sound like I'm saying something crazy. I just wanted to put something out there to think about.

Oh,. and I also want to mention that if union money goes towards the Democratic party, it's because the Republican party doesn't believe in unions. You only have to look towards the recent events in Wisconsin to see that.

You only spent a year in public school so I'm not sure that gives you a good view of what they're like. Plus, every public school is a little different, varying form state to state and even town to town. Even within the same town there can be differences in what the administration allows. Some schools will have sex ed in high school, but some simply preach abstinence and don't really discuss it otherwise.

No actually, I spent 3 years. Which was plenty thank you, it was quite horrid. And quite frankly, I was in a private school for one year that was horribly liberal when it wasn't supposed to be. We were required to watch movies about how horrible republicans were and right essays on political topics where if you were on the republican side you were given a lesser grade. This was a school set up by the Ivy Leagues to be a college prep school which I won a scholarship to and I was horrified about the lack of being able to think for yourself on your assignments. And this school wasn't even considered a liberal school.

Religious influence benefits the teacher because people like people that think the way they do. And just because you're teaching math doesn't mean you can't "indoctrinise" others, although I don't think you should anyways. Personal views have no place in the classroom. Also, I think you'll find if you teach in a public school that's it's very different than how YOU seem to be imagining it, especially on the other side of the fence. And what do you imagine the intentions of the teachers ARE then if not to teach the kids to think in their way about religion and such?

Okay, I find this interesting. You seem to be okay with teachers stating their political opinion in the next paragraph but you say in this one that personal opinion in the classroom is wrong. Conflicting much? And just to be clear, your use of 'merely' indicates your downplaying it as justification. As for religious 'gain' then okay sure, if you look at like that maybe, but it's still on the same level with political influencing and it's still wrong. Maybe I don't see it as such a big deal because I am religious so maybe I can't speak on that matter. I can however speak on the matter of political influencing.

----------

Oh, also I don;t think indoctrination is quite as rampant as you seem to think. Even my teachers that share their political views made sure that they didn't influence us, merely stated them. And they stated reasons why, they didn't merely try to make the other candidate look stupid. And it was only one teacher, in an honors class where he knew we could think for ourselves.

Your justifying something that is against the State Education Ethics which they can lose their job over. And apparently in some schools, and I too did experience this, they try to convince students to vote one way or another which is quite wrong. If a teacher was indoctrinating their students religiously so blatantly, it'd be all over the news.

Oh,. and I also want to mention that if union money goes towards the Democratic party, it's because the Republican party doesn't believe in unions. You only have to look towards the recent events in Wisconsin to see that.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they didn't force Teachers to pay union dues. I'm not interested in a union, I don't agree with a union, but because I want to be a Teacher, I'm required to pay for something I don't think is necessary or correct. Look at Virginia. They don't have public unions and guess what! They have a balanced budget. Now, back on track, this is about homeschooling, remember?

I dislike how I'm being talked down to. -.-

I think you didn't actually read what I said at all. EVERY SCHOOL is different. And you said two years were cyber schools, so they're quite different and I think they're more similar to homeschooling, actually. I took a couple of online classes and really it's almost EXACTLY like homeschooling. Self-motivation, loose class times. That's all I'm saying.-

What I was TRYING to say is they shouldn't influence students, technically, but i don't think it's wrong if they allow the students to think for themselves and NOT indoctrinate, but instead try to make them think critically.

You think you don't agree with unions, but trust me, my Mom was a teacher and without unions she wouldn't have gotten health benefits or what little pay she did get. Do Virginia teachers get all of that? I'm actually curious here, since I've never known a teacher in Virginia.

And I'm sorry for bringing us further off topic, but I just had to clear up a few things.

Originally Posted by fairywaif

I think you didn't actually read what I said at all. EVERY SCHOOL is different. And you said two years were cyber schools, so they're quite different and I think they're more similar to homeschooling, actually. I took a couple of online classes and really it's almost EXACTLY like homeschooling. Self-motivation, loose class times. That's all I'm saying.-

Taking a few classes online =/= Cyber school. Yeah Cyber school is similar to homeschooling but unlike homeschooling parents aren't in charge, teachers are. And teachers still sometimes teach the same liberal stuff, and it's often in the curriculum. Yes, I did read what you said. I was responding to it.

What I was TRYING to say is they shouldn't influence students, technically, but i don't think it's wrong if they allow the students to think for themselves and NOT indoctrinate, but instead try to make them think critically.

Which does not include the need to state their own political opinion. :) And even if that was your point, you later seemed to conflict it.

You think you don't agree with unions, but trust me, my Mom was a teacher and without unions she wouldn't have gotten health benefits or what little pay she did get. Do Virginia teachers get all of that? I'm actually curious here, since I've never known a teacher in Virginia.

LOL. I think I don't agree? No, I strongly disagree. Unions don't care about students, they don't care about education, all they care about is power and money. I'm not into that, and the teacher's average salary is higher than the national average salary, which means it's very doable to live on, even if you don't get every luxury. As far as Unions go, I'm frankly not interested. I'd rather my contract be between me and the person who employs me and I'd rather EARN my salary raise rather than be selfish and refuse to work until I get what I want. I don't believe in going on strikes because that hurts the students education which I'm not into. I want to be a teacher to be able to help kids learn not to get paid a lot. Unions don't care about the kids.

As far as benefits and such go...

Virginia Teacher Salary | Teaching Salaries in VA: $43,823
Wisconsin Teacher Salary | Teaching Salaries in WI: $46,390

Both North Carolina AND Virginia rank higher in salary comfort level than Wisconsin. In Virginia, 35% of Education budget is spent on teachers while only 30% is spent in Wisconsin. And in North Carolina, it's 39%! Illinois is the topped ranked state and it only allocates 38% of it's budget to teachers.

Virginia also has a higher starting salary for teachers by about $8,000 AND it's 10-year increase is 26% while Wisconsin's is only 21.5%. If you ask me, Wisconsin teacher's should sue their unions. North Carolina, another state that does not allow collective bargaining is ranked the FOURTH state for 10-year increase at 44.4%, and has a higher starting salary than Wisconsin by $2,000.

As you can see, they're doing just fine without those public unions. :)

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Taking a few classes online =/= Cyber school. Yeah Cyber school is similar to homeschooling but unlike homeschooling parents aren't in charge, teachers are. And teachers still sometimes teach the same liberal stuff, and it's often in the curriculum. Yes, I did read what you said. I was responding to it.



Which does not include the need to state their own political opinion. :) And even if that was your point, you later seemed to conflict it.



LOL. I think I don't agree? Please, I'm not a child and it's not like 'I don't know any better'. I have informed political opinions about what it is I agree with and what I do not agree with and I hardly think it's within your authority to tell me what I think I believe. No, I strongly disagree. Unions don't care about students, they don't care about education, all they care about is power and money. I'm not into that, and the teacher's average salary is higher than the national average salary, which means it's very doable to live on, even if you don't get every luxury. People live everyday for ALOT less. As far as Unions go, I'm frankly not interested. I'd rather my contract be between me and the person who employs me and I'd rather EARN my salary raise rather than be selfish and refuse to work until I get what I want like a temper tantrum we throw when we're 2 years old. I don't believe in going on strikes because that hurts the students education which I'm not into. I want to be a teacher to be able to help kids learn, I'm more into giving than taking and to be blunt, it works a lot better in life.

As far as benefits and such go...

Virginia Teacher Salary | Teaching Salaries in VA: $43,823
Wisconsin Teacher Salary | Teaching Salaries in WI: $46,390

Both North Carolina AND Virginia rank higher in salary comfort level than Wisconsin. In Virginia, 35% of Education budget is spent on teachers while only 30% is spent in Wisconsin. And in North Carolina, it's 39%! Illinois is the topped ranked state and it only allocates 38% of it's budget to teachers.

Virginia also has a higher starting salary for teachers by about $8,000 AND it's 10-year increase is 26% while Wisconsin's is only 21.5%. If you ask me, Wisconsin teacher's should sue their unions. North Carolina, another state that does not allow collective bargaining is ranked the FOURTH state for 10-year increase at 44.4%, and has a higher starting salary than Wisconsin by $2,000.

As you can see, they're doing just fine without those public unions. :)

North Carolina is ranked fourth in 10-year salary increase because up until the last ten years, NC was ranked 47th in the nation for teacher salaries. I know. My dad's a teacher.

O.o I'm not sure how that double post happened...

Although it would indicate states without bargaining rights are doing just fine.

But what people don't realize is that for home schooling to really work you need a lot of money to pay for private extra-curricular activities (if there are no community ones that you don't need to pay for) or classes that parents can't teach. That's how students end up with such bad people skills. They stay home all day and study and don't have the socialization. They kids that do are kids with jobs or people well off or lucky to have other means for socialization (such as the one poster who mentioned her sister got those through her parents exchanging other things instead of money).

This simply isn't true. Homeschooling costs more than public school because you have to purchase books but for the most part that's the only expense unless your state requires evaluation. Many states require that the public schools open up their extra curricular activities to homeschoolers, and wherever there is a group of homeschoolers there are co-ops. As for kids, only 10% of homeschooled children do not have siblings, which means the other 90% has at least one person around the almost all the time who is also there age to play with, on top of any adults in the family. Homeschoolers don't 'study all day and have no socialization', in fact, I've refuted this statement already with a myriad of statistics that show that Homeschooled children tend to actually be more socialized adults. Adults who were homeschooled are more likely to be involved in organizations and helping out in the community when compared to the rest of the population. Except for the rare case, Homeschooled children get the socialization they need without a problem. Quite frankly I'm annoyed that people think Homeschoolers are automatically 'unsocialized' because we're homeschooled and not surrounded by at least a hundred peers every day. My family is by no means rich, we actually live below the poverty level so it's not like we have tons of money for 'extra' activities. My sister is able to be involved in a dance class that does cost money but for the most part that's it. Her and I have friends to hang out with, we often go to local churches for various activities or for example I've been helping run the local park's free day camps. Meanwhile if you were to put me in school I'd be lonelier than ever because I have a lot more tedius work to learn the same thing and unless you fit in you pretty much don't have friends many friends anyway. Being homeschooled I CAN BE MYSELF and everyone accepts me as who I am. Homeschoolers don't care what you look like, how you're dressed because what's important is the friendship, not the vanity.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

O.o I'm not sure how that double post happened...

Although it would indicate states without bargaining rights are doing just fine.



This simply isn't true. Homeschooling costs more than public school because you have to purchase books but for the most part that's the only expense unless your state requires evaluation. Many states require that the public schools open up their extra curricular activities to homeschoolers, and wherever there is a group of homeschoolers there are co-ops. As for kids, only 10% of homeschooled children do not have siblings, which means the other 90% has at least one person around the almost all the time who is also there age to play with, on top of any adults in the family. Homeschoolers don't 'study all day and have no socialization', in fact, I've refuted this statement already with a myriad of statistics that show that Homeschooled children tend to actually be more socialized adults. Adults who were homeschooled are more likely to be involved in organizations and helping out in the community when compared to the rest of the population. Except for the rare case, Homeschooled children get the socialization they need without a problem. Quite frankly I'm annoyed that people think Homeschoolers are automatically 'unsocialized' because we're homeschooled and not surrounded by at least a hundred peers every day. My family is by no means rich, we actually live below the poverty level so it's not like we have tons of money for 'extra' activities. My sister is able to be involved in a dance class that does cost money but for the most part that's it. Her and I have friends to hang out with, we often go to local churches for various activities or for example I've been helping run the local park's free day camps. Meanwhile if you were to put me in school I'd be lonelier than ever because I have a lot more tedius work to learn the same thing and unless you fit in you pretty much don't have friends many friends anyway. Being homeschooled I CAN BE MYSELF and everyone accepts me as who I am. Homeschoolers don't care what you look like, how you're dressed because what's important is the friendship, not the vanity.

I said that some places don't have a lot of activities and that makes home schooling expensive for some parents. I was simply stating that the home schooled kids who don't have socialization are the kids who don't have co-ops, jobs, or activities because they are unavailable or they cannot afford them. I am well aware that there are home schoolers who do have socialization and in fact I know quite a few. I only know one family who home schools and they act..... unsocialized.

I quite home school because of socialization. I wasn't going to ask the public school if i could participate in their activities because that's where I was escaping from. I was taunted, tormented and picked on there. We did have a home school group but it met once a month and nearly all of the members lived at least 2 hours away which made it quite hard to keep friends. We had no money for lessons and stuff so in the end it didn't work out. I simply stated that there are kids like this who keep home schooling and they are the unsocialized ones.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I'm assuming your first statement is referring to the 98% statistic in which you need to re-read what I said. First of all, I said there was proof but I didn't feel like digging it up and I wasn't going to debate it because it was just a side note. Second I said of 98% all the union dues that GO TO political parties go to democratic parties, not ALL the union dues. Please read what I say carefully before making judgements, thank you. And according to your reference it's 93% and quite frankly seeing as I was quoting that number from memory it's not that far off. =/ Give me a break here, I was only 5% off.

I don't care, don't post statistics if you're not going to back them up, too many people make up statistics on the spot that make things biased towards whatever claim they're supporting, and that's unfair in a debate setting--you can't post in a debate and then go BUT I DON'T WANNA DEBATE IT--just don't post then.

And don't tell me to reread your post, I read it just fine, but some of the wording was ambiguous and poorly phrased so I interpreted it the way I read it.
I also didn't make any judgments in my previous post, you're the one who is taking things too personally and being dramatic.

This is a debate thread, and accuracy is key. Even a few percent off can completely skew the reader's opinion--WITH FALSE INFORMATION.

Didn't you learn that in school? That giving someone false information is bad?

I don't care, don't post statistics if you're not going to back them up, too many people make up statistics on the spot that make things biased towards whatever claim they're supporting, and that's unfair in a debate setting--you can't post in a debate and then go BUT I DON'T WANNA DEBATE IT--just don't post then.

They've been backed up.

And don't tell me to reread your post, I read it just fine, but some of the wording was ambiguous and poorly phrased so I interpreted it the way I read it.

Don't comment on my post unless you read it then. -.- You're the one who made the comment off of something I didn't say so don't lecture me about how to debate. Twisting words is not how you debate.

This is a debate thread, and accuracy is key. Even a few percent off can completely skew the reader's opinion--WITH FALSE INFORMATION.

I was quoting from memory, and my point is still valid, even if I made a typo.

Didn't you learn that in school? That giving someone false information is bad?

That's just condescending. It wasn't false information.

Quite frankly I don't see why everyone make a huge deal over a spec. It really wasn't that big a deal, I already admitted I was a little off, but the mistake has been corrected. Now can please get back on topic rather than fussing at me for making a little mistake? I'm human just like the rest of ya.

I said that some places don't have a lot of activities and that makes home schooling expensive for some parents. I was simply stating that the home schooled kids who don't have socialization are the kids who don't have co-ops, jobs, or activities because they are unavailable or they cannot afford them. I am well aware that there are home schoolers who do have socialization and in fact I know quite a few. I only know one family who home schools and they act..... unsocialized.

I quite home school because of socialization. I wasn't going to ask the public school if i could participate in their activities because that's where I was escaping from. I was taunted, tormented and picked on there. We did have a home school group but it met once a month and nearly all of the members lived at least 2 hours away which made it quite hard to keep friends. We had no money for lessons and stuff so in the end it didn't work out. I simply stated that there are kids like this who keep home schooling and they are the unsocialized ones.

No more so than the awkward/shy kids you can find in every other kind of school. =/

A statistic is never valid unless sourced. And that's exactly the point Hayzel, you MADE A MISTAKE recalling it from memory.

Of course unions are going to support the politicians who support their EXISTENCE--most republicans if they had their way would disband all unions and say fuck the working class. =__=
And I have, already explained why I felt it was still on topic.

And, again, I did read your post. I read it and I interpreted it and replied to it, but it was VAGUE and ambiguous.
You telling me to reread your post when I clearly have is also incredibly insulting.
Just a note - disagreeing with you doesn't mean I didn't read your post.

Of course unions are going to support the politicians who support their EXISTENCE--most republicans if they had their way would disband all unions and say fuck the working class. =__=
And I have, already explained why I felt it was still on topic.

Heh, I guess you missed the links I posted about how Virginia, who does NOT allow public unions is not has a balanced budget, is ranked HIGHER than Wisconsin. I find it funny how you ignore my valid points and point out a mistake over and over again that I already admitted I made and corrected. So before saying anything else about republicans who don't agree with unions, look up what states without public unions and how they're doing because it's actually better. Unions are going to force me to pay hundreds of dollars in dues so they can turn around and hand to a political group I don't agree with. Why should I be forced to pay union dues(which in some states are required of all teachers, not just teachers who are in a union) when I don't agree with it? I'd rather be judged on my teaching and abilities.

Just for kicks, let's also see you back up your statement that Republicans would screw over the working class, unbiased please. Everything I've shown and seen disagrees with that statement.

A statistic is never valid unless sourced. And that's exactly the point Hayzel, you MADE A MISTAKE recalling it from memory.

Yeah, I admitted and corrected it so move on please.

And, again, I did read your post. I read it and I interpreted it and replied to it, but it was VAGUE and ambiguous.
You telling me to reread your post when I clearly have is also incredibly insulting.

Uhm, you said that I claimed 98% of all dues went to the democratic party, when I specifically said of all dues that went to political parties. You wrote a whole paragraph bashing an argument that I never made, which makes me thing you didn't read what I said very clearly.

Just a note - disagreeing with you doesn't mean I didn't read your post.

Okay let me go back. This was the statement I made originally:

and of the dues that unions give to political parties, 98% go to democratic party.

And this was your response:

And not 98% of ALL dues going to political endeavors. In fact, administration and representation (of the union) take up a LOT of the money that unions take in.

I did edit by bolding the important parts. You're telling me, not 98% of all dues go to politics, even though THAT ISNT WHAT I SAID. So even if you did read my post, you obviously misread that part. It wasn't a disagreement, it wasn't an 'interpretation' or even a misinterpretation. You simply took a small part of that sentence and reacted, and it showed you didn't read the post very carefully, and excuse me for being annoyed that people are assuming I said something I didn't and instead are wasting my time by having to restate what I originally stated instead of them just reading what I actually said carefully.

Okay, at this point, it's necessary for me to do this because this is getting ridiculous.

Honestly...I've given up on it a while ago...but it just keeps coming up and I'm tired of having to avoid my own thread because of this.

Hayzel, you came into this thread, making points you decided you weren't going to cite OR discuss. That's not how debate works, more specifically, that's not how THIS debate is going to work. If you're going to say something, then you HAVE to open it up for discussion, and by saying "I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to find a source because I don't want to" you're basically disrespecting the entire process.

And when it's been brought to your attention, you just snark about how you "know how to debate but you didn't WANT to debate it." If you want to say something and not have to discuss it or cite your source, then go make it a facebook status or a blog or whatever. But you don't get to decide what points get debated, or aren't debated. If you bring up a point in a debate, then it's open for debate. I really don't care if you don't "want to debate something because it's not the point," if you SAY something, then you get to deal with rebuttal. Period.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Heh, I guess you missed the links I posted about how Virginia, who does NOT allow public unions is not has a balanced budget, is ranked HIGHER than Wisconsin. I find it funny how you ignore my valid points and point out a mistake over and over again that I already admitted I made and corrected. So before saying anything else about republicans who don't agree with unions, look up what states without public unions and how they're doing because it's actually better. Unions are going to force me to pay hundreds of dollars in dues so they can turn around and hand to a political group I don't agree with. Why should I be forced to pay union dues(which in some states are required of all teachers, not just teachers who are in a union) when I don't agree with it? I'd rather be judged on my teaching and abilities.

No, I didn't miss them, but I wasn't replying to them. I was replying to your post directed at me. I think Quasi handled your other post sufficiently. Most public school teachers are paid diddly squat, without unions, many of them would be paid even less.

And yes, I know you'd "admitted" to making a mistake and corrected it, but you're missing the point. The point is be careful how you say things, and support things like statistics with a source. And when in a debate thread, always remember that anything said, is up for debate.

Just for kicks, let's also see you back up your statement that Republicans would screw over the working class, unbiased please. Everything I've shown and seen disagrees with that statement.

The current governor of Wisconsin is currently trying to destroy unions in his state.
If you'd like more, I can find more, but in general Republicans like tax breaks for the rich, and more taxes for the poor(/er), and eliminating anything government funded for people in need. -- Which includes public school, I might add!

Uhm, you said that I claimed 98% of all dues went to the democratic party, when I specifically said of all dues that went to political parties. You wrote a whole paragraph bashing an argument that I never made, which makes me thing you didn't read what I said very clearly.

I did edit by bolding the important parts. You're telling me, not 98% of all dues go to politics, even though THAT ISNT WHAT I SAID. So even if you did read my post, you obviously misread that part. It wasn't a disagreement, it wasn't an 'interpretation' or even a misinterpretation. You simply took a small part of that sentence and reacted, and it showed you didn't read the post very carefully, and excuse me for being annoyed that people are assuming I said something I didn't and instead are wasting my time by having to restate what I originally stated instead of them just reading what I actually said carefully.

I still find it very ambiguous. You don't state what unions give "98%" of ??? dues or if that's ALL unions, or if that's 98% of ALL dues.
Pardon me for being confused. :roll:

Hayzel, you came into this thread, making points you decided you weren't going to cite OR discuss. That's not how debate works, more specifically, that's not how THIS debate is going to work. If you're going to say something, then you HAVE to open it up for discussion, and by saying "I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to find a source because I don't want to" you're basically disrespecting the entire process.

And when it's been brought to your attention, you just snark about how you "know how to debate but you didn't WANT to debate it." If you want to say something and not have to discuss it or cite your source, then go make it a facebook status or a blog or whatever. But you don't get to decide what points get debated, or aren't debated. If you bring up a point in a debate, then it's open for debate. I really don't care if you don't "want to debate something because it's not the point," if you SAY something, then you get to deal with rebuttal. Period.

I've admitted I made a mistake and I have corrected it, what more do you want me to do?! I do not need a lecture on how a debate works, I know how a debate works, I've been debating for almost ten years now, I just made a mistake and I'm sorry and It's fixed and I quite simply don't know what else you want me to do about it. I don't however think it's fair that I keep getting rebuked for this. People make mistakes all the time, and if I'd known you guys weren't going to be at all forgiving about it I would've never even entered this thread. As it is, I'm probably going to leave because I feel so personally attacked for something that apparently I cannot fix now. I keep getting called a bad debater for 1 mistake yet it's you who won't accept my apology and correction and move on. =/

It's because of how you say things they come off as though you're attacking people for criticizing you or your points, and, well.

I really don't care if you don't "want to debate something because it's not the point," if you SAY something, then you get to deal with rebuttal. Period.

Quasi said it much better and much more simply than I can.
It doesn't just apply to debates, either.

But back on topic, because this really has strayed too far with no debate value;

Here are some reasons why parent's might see homeschooling as not the best option for their kid's.
I found it an interesting view point, some were brought up already; like how much money it costs to pay for extracurricular activities, others have not really been explored, most people have been speaking on the side of being a homeschool student, not a homeschool parent.

Most public school teachers are paid diddly squat, without unions, many of them would be paid even less.

Yet not only are they paid higher than the average American is paid for working 9 months out of the year instead of 12, and the states without unions actually pay their teachers higher than most states with unions within relation to the state's economy. You keep saying this, yet you show no evidence and I've shown plenty.

The current governor of Wisconsin is currently trying to destroy unions in his state.
If you'd like more, I can find more, but in general Republicans like tax breaks for the rich, and more taxes for the poor(/er), and eliminating anything government funded for people in need. -- Which includes public school, I might add!

Republicans like tax breaks for everyone. Democrats only like tax breaks for the poor. And your article was about the Governor removing the public union's collective bargaining rights, to do what he was elected to do and balance the budget and keep 1500 jobs public sector jobs. He wasn't even going anywhere near private unions, nor way he 'attacking' or 'screwing' the working class by doing so. Unless you can provide a logical argument with good back up then your argument is null.

I still find it very ambiguous. You don't state what unions give "98%" of ??? dues or if that's ALL unions, or if that's 98% of ALL dues.

It was unions in general, and that should not have mattered as I did state it was a percentage of the dues that were given to political endeavors. =/ And even if you were confused, you could've just admitted you read it wrong. We all make mistakes, and I admit mine...

I found it an interesting view point, some were brought up already; like how much money it costs to pay for extracurricular activities, others have not really been explored, most people have been speaking on the side of being a homeschool student, not a homeschool parent.

As a homeschool parent, you will spend extra time and money taking your child to extra-curricular activities.

The average public school student, not statistically, just typically is involved in at least 1 club or sport. How is it with homeschooling there is suddenly a requirement for more extra time and money for extracurricular activities? Even if the kid was in public school parents have to pay money to buy or rent musical instruments. Even if a the kid was in public school parents would spend time driving kids to and from school for things like sports, theater rehearsal etc. which are daily while most extracurricular activities I did as a kid were weekly or monthly. For PE my mom would take my sister and I outside and we'd do something simple for half an hour like play four-square or shoot hoops or kick a soccer ball around. Participating in sports was something I did too but my parents didn't drive any more than any of the public schooled kids parents did. Co-ops do not usually cost money other than supplies, and they cover most extra courses like music, biology and chemistry labs, theater, and even more basic ones like advanced math and english or economics. The YMCA allowed a homeschool group to meet in the Gym and have the kids play sports for 2 hours a week for 50 dollars a week(split it among 10-15 families and it's very reasonable). Really the only additional expenses are for the books which may cost a couple hundred a year per child at the most, but they can also be re-used on younger children and later resold. When I was younger my family and 3 others(totaling 7 kids) did a public speaking and debate class. There was no cost because it was a book borrowed from the library, we took turns meeting once a week at each other's houses and all of us kids benefited greatly from it. Even in school, the Chemistry and Graphic Communications classes required a 20 dollar lab fee per semester. Homeschooled kids are also allowed to use the extra curricular activities at the local school, like choir, sports, etc. in most states and areas.

As far as field trips go, my mother would do things like take us to Gettysburg battle fields, we walked around a museum for a few hours, sat in on the Map Room, then at home we wrote a page on what we learned and there was a field trip. Only we could do these on vacation as well, or just about anywhere, even if we would've gone there as a family anyway. Extracurricular activities are also not required, and not hard to handle for the creative parent. The internet or the library is a great resource of activities or hobbies to get kids involved in, and many times it doesn't cost much. Digital Photography, Stamp Collecting, Indoor Aerobics, Puzzles and Educational Games, Home-Made science experiments, Identifying things in nature or bird watching(I actually did that in public school), Listening to or learning how to read music, Studying art, crafts, art projects, computer skills like programming, graphic design, fashion, 'pretend' shopping(learning how to add prices and such). You can turn regular play dates into an extracurricular activity or some sort of learning experience.

As someone who wishes to homeschool their kids, I know there are a lot of cons for the parents, for example not having as much time to themselves. Homeschool parents are very selfless and dedicated to their kids. Honestly I think the list you linked to makes a lot of different things out of one thing: It's not easy on parents physically or mentally. My sister butt heads with my mom all the time and my mom had to be really patient with her. My mother always says it was as much a learning experience for her as it was for us, because many times she was learning the material so she could teach it to us(and she minored in elementary education), and learning different ways of teaching different things.

An instance where republicans are attempting to increase taxes.

Average wages and Average teacher wages (before benefits and taxes are paid for) and the poverty line. Teachers are paid just barely over the poverty line in most cases (assuming that they have a child or two, which many do), especially new teachers, and a lot of teachers have to pay for things out of pocket, especially in places like NYC's public schools--because there simply isn't any money for them in the budget to buy things their students need and probably can't afford, like paper or pencils.

----------

As for costs--You keep arguing the same damn thing, and I disagree. Homeschooling is not a cheap endeavor.

Costs add up. Not only is the parent paying for ALL the books, ALL the materials, ALL the time spent teaching the child instead of working (or PAYING someone to teach them)...They also have to pay for transportation to outside extraciriculars and sports--which let me tell you, gets expensive really fast. Most public schools can provide you with most materials (--even uniforms, if you can't afford them! My school held bake sales to help kids who couldn't afford uniforms or other equipment to pay for them), bar instruments and cups...AND transportation to and from any meets.
Homeschool kids because they don't get any time with other kids unless they do homeschooling with other students, one outside activity probably isn't enough. They probably also want a sport, which costs another buttload.

And field-trips?
Adult tickets to an aquarium: $50
Kids: $25 (each)
Plus gas: $20

It all adds up.

Ask Pixie--her family couldn't afford extracurricular activities so she was really lonely and miserable (or at least that was the impression I got).
Not everyone lives close enough to a co-op for that to be a viable answer. Not everyone lives in the middle of a city or in a suburb close to a city where it's possible. Sometimes it's just not the best option, and yeah, some of that involves money.

----------

Also Some public schools do not allowed homeschooled children to participate in their extracurricular activities. I'm not sure how high or low that number is, but, it's a fiercely debated issue on whether or not homeschooled kids should be allowed to. I personally, think they should, but it's not available everywhere as of now, so it's not a they can just go and participate in the local school's stuff. Some schools do not allow it.

----------

Also; recess.
Home school kids don't really have it.
But it's a time where kids in private and public school get to mingle and make friends. Friends they can hangout with outside of school and do outside of school things.

In general; I'm not saying home schooling is a bad idea--I actually want to entertain the idea of homeschooling my kids one day--I had a miserable time in public school. BUT, I also know the downsides of it, and how much it can cost in time and effort and money, so I'm not going to fairy-tale it to being something perfect and magical. It's an option, not always the best option, but one that is there, and if when weighing the options you've decided it's what's right for you, then go for it. But, there are downsides! Don't forget that, that's all I'm saying.

But I'm really tired of this, so forgive me if I don't reply again. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. :sweat: So let's agree to disagree.

An instance where republicans are attempting to increase taxes.

This is from an openly democratic source, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that one political party will say just about anything to the other political party. Normally it's actually Democrats attempting to raise taxes on anyone. For example the Health Care bill will add to the tax load of the American people. the TEA party stands for 'Taxed Enough Already' and the TEA party tends to disagree with democrats and liberals.

Average wages and Average teacher wages (before benefits and taxes are paid for) and the poverty line. Teachers are paid just barely over the poverty line in most cases (assuming that they have a child or two, which many do), especially new teachers, and a lot of teachers have to pay for things out of pocket, especially in places like NYC's public schools--because there simply isn't any money for them in the budget to buy things their students need and probably can't afford, like paper or pencils.

Average Teacher High School Salary Information plus Job, Career Education & Unemployment Help says that the average teachers salary is roughly 10,000 more than what your saying. The poverty guideline for a 4-person family is 22,000 a year, while the average salary is between 43,000 and 54,000 depending on which source you use while the national average salary is 3-14k lower and teaching is one of the only jobs that does not go all year round, allowing teachers to also get summer work tutoring or teaching summer classes for additional income if they so choose. It really isn't a bad deal.

As for costs--You keep arguing the same damn thing, and I disagree. Homeschooling is not a cheap endeavor.

Costs add up. Not only is the parent paying for ALL the books, ALL the materials, ALL the time spent teaching the child instead of working (or PAYING someone to teach them)...They also have to pay for transportation to outside extraciriculars and sports--which let me tell you, gets expensive really fast. Most public schools can provide you with most materials (--even uniforms, if you can't afford them! My school held bake sales to help kids who couldn't afford uniforms or other equipment to pay for them), bar instruments and cups...AND transportation to and from any meets.
Homeschool kids because they don't get any time with other kids unless they do homeschooling with other students, one outside activity probably isn't enough. They probably also want a sport, which costs another buttload.

And field-trips?
Adult tickets to an aquarium: $50
Kids: $25 (each)
Plus gas: $20

It all adds up.

Ask Pixie--her family couldn't afford extracurricular activities so she was really lonely and miserable (or at least that was the impression I got).
Not everyone lives close enough to a co-op for that to be a viable answer. Not everyone lives in the middle of a city or in a suburb close to a city where it's possible. Sometimes it's just not the best option, and yeah, some of that involves money.

Public schools do not provide things like notebooks, paper, pencils, and most don't even provide calculators except for the student who might've forgotten theirs. They don't provide for backpacks or other materials. Paying for ALL the books only costs a couple hundred dollars, which you can make about half of back by reselling. I would know because I help my mother run a Homeschool bookstore. Most schools do not provide transportation for students who remain after school for sports, they must either drive themselves home or get a ride.

You're basing your arguments on assumptions. My family lives BELOW the poverty level, yet we were still able to drive to the YMCA, singing lessons, and swim practice(run by the public school in the late evening when ALL parents had to drive their kids, whether they were homeschooled or not) a few times a week and we live in a rural area. As for field trips, once or twice a year is enough and you can turn anything into a field trip really, not an expensive trip to the aquariam. I'd also like to point out many public schools have optional field trips that you have to pay to go on anyway. Homeschooling isn't much more expensive that going to public school and it's certainly cheaper than most private schools. You're right, not EVERYONE can afford extracurricular activities. But my point is, most people can because they aren't THAT expensive.

Also Some public schools do not allowed homeschooled children to participate in their extracurricular activities. I'm not sure how high or low that number is, but, it's a fiercely debated issue on whether or not homeschooled kids should be allowed to. I personally, think they should, but it's not available everywhere as of now, so it's not a they can just go and participate in the local school's stuff. Some schools do not allow it.

Please quote me where I said all schools allow it. You won't be able to because I know not all schools do. But MOST schools are required by law to allow homeschoolers access to their schools. Cyber school is considered public school and also requires it, plus the cyber school pays 100 dollars a semester per child for any extracurricular activities and pays for the internet 9 months out of the year.

I never said you said all schools allow it, I was simply saying that some schools definitely don't, and that I think public schools should. I just wanted to add it, I didn't think I HAD to disagree in order to comment.

I frankly think we're arguing for some of the same things, but looking at it differently. I prefer glass-half-empty in debates.

Teachers are paid less than they need to live well, I think. Teachers should be well groomed, clean, nice clothes (not casual) and should be eating and sleeping well. If they are responsible for children, don't we want them to be in the best state of mind and looking, feeling and acting their best?

Besides, they put up with kids all day long, basically babysitting them and trying to teach them things--which is near impossible today with over 20 kids per class. :sweat: Yes, I'm admitting that public schools have their flaws too. (I actually am of the option the entire school system in the US needs some reworking, but that takes time, money, and people agreeing on things--which rarely happens. x__x)

Hayzel, I'd also like to point out that some of your sources are clearly biased too (I mean really, every source has some bias), and personal experience isn't always the end all...Just because it's like that for you, doesn't mean it's like that for everyone--yet you seem to think it is.

Also; I found this an interesting read too.

----------

Teacher salary also varies according to education level of the teacher. A teacher with a four year bachelor’s degree may make less than a teacher with a master’s degree. The ranges for teacher salary in Chicago, IL vary from $37,372 to $89,620. This wide range obviously incorporates education level and experience of a multitude of teachers. Teacher salary also depends on what school level or subject teachers specialize in. A secondary school teacher may make more than a primary school teacher. In Chicago, a primary school teacher makes approximately $44,480. A secondary school teacher makes about $4,000 more, or $48,180. The average mathematics teacher makes $38,211, while the average science teacher makes $62,391. These teachers may make up to $52,977 or $87,946, respectively. A history teacher at the secondary level makes $38,256. The highest reported income for a history teacher in Chicago is $53,106. These wide ranges include teachers in public and private institutions at a variety of experience levels.

The Federation indicated that unfortunately, teachers are struggling to find housing in their areas that they can afford on their salaries. As more teachers pursue additional education after receiving their bachelor’s degree, their student loan debt increases dramatically. New teachers may not start at an average teacher salary and could therefore struggle even more than veteran teachers, who may have higher salaries.

Source: Teacher Salaries by State | Employment Spot

Chicago cost of living is high. Chicago cost of living is about 60% above the national average. I was truly shocked when I found out how much the cost of apartment living is in Chicago. Studios go for $700 -$900 in the windy city while a one bedrooms averages around $1600 to $1700. Need an apartment for two or three bedrooms? When you better have a six figure income because living in a 2-3 bedroom apartment in Chicago's inner city will cost of anywhere from $1900 all the way to a staggering $2,900.

Source: http://www.costoflivingbystate.org/c...g-chicago.html

I'm saying one more thing, and then I'm done with all of this.

The things that teachers do during school hours are only half of their job. They spend their "free time" creating lesson plans, plotting curricula, grading tests and homework. That's right: when teachers go home they have MORE HOMEWORK THAN STUDENTS.

Teachers are only paid for 10 months out of the year, and some states (like NC) forced teachers to take mandatory RETROACTIVE pay cuts the last couple of years. Just in case, that means they had money taken out of a current year's check two months in a row to cover the pay cut from the previous year's salary, in addition to the paycut continuing to be active. SO they're taking MORE money from people who are making less than they made the year before. So all this talk of "they get paid so much for only working 10 months a year" is using data to distort the facts, because technically they're only getting paid for HALF the work they do. And that's before all the things that get taken out of their paychecks.

Frankly, you should probably be listening more and arguing less about the nature of public schools because again, if you're going to teach in the future...you need to be aware of what you're getting yourself into, and I spent my entire life with a public school teacher. I fully support your endeavor to be a teacher, if your heart is in the right place and you really believe that educating young minds is REALLY what drives you, then by all means, go for it. But understand that it is a thankless, taxing job that you only get paid for part of, and trust me, you can talk all you want about how teachers make so much more than poverty level, and how "being able to get summer work is a pretty good gig," but I promise you it doesn't add up to NEARLY as much as you think, once you factor in all the things you have to pay for just to live on your own. You know, mortgage/rent, car note, car insurance, health insurance, dental, vision, medicines, life insurance, homeowner's/renter's insurance, the cost of raising children (look up the average annual cost of raising one child extrapolated over 18 years) plus savings for emergencies (because kids are accident prone and shit breaks all the time: setting an arm in 1997 cost $990 dollars WITH teacher's health insurance. That's a $990 dollar CO-PAY, mind you, not the total from which insurance is subtracted. To say nothing of other major medical procedures that a child WILL have to have like tonsil and adenoid removal, appendectomies, broken bones, trips to the ER for triage, doctor's visits every two weeks for a year before the tonsils come out, chicken pox...)

You can consider the data, that teachers make X above poverty level, but you then have to subtract cost of living, expenses, AND THEN you have to consider THE JOB THAT TEACHERS DO. Teachers are responsible for the molding of the minds of the youth of America, arguably the single most important job in our society, and like ALL civil servants they do not get paid nearly enough for the responsibilities they are handed. And really, you think that working 10 and 12 hours days, being paid for half the work you do, and then having to go get a job at a gas station, or planting trees with the forest service, or teaching summer school, or spending a summer babysitting a bunch of delinquent (and I mean like they have criminal records delinquent) teenagers just so you can feed your family is a "good gig" then you've got kind of a skewed idea of what a good gig is.

And when you start talking about "average teacher salaries" you're talking about college professors and doctors, tenure teachers in post-secondary education institutions, private school, and public school, including both primary and secondary institutions. You will need at LEAST four years of college for your bachelor's...and if you intend to make tenure you have to spend at least 4 years teaching (at starting teacher salary, by the way, which in the state of north carolina, just so you know: is 27 grand a year.)
Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com

Teachers are paid less than they need to live well, I think. Teachers should be well groomed, clean, nice clothes (not casual) and should be eating and sleeping well. If they are responsible for children, don't we want them to be in the best state of mind and looking, feeling and acting their best?

Besides, they put up with kids all day long, basically babysitting them and trying to teach them things--which is near impossible today with over 20 kids per class. Yes, I'm admitting that public schools have their flaws too. (I actually am of the option the entire school system in the US needs some reworking, but that takes time, money, and people agreeing on things--which rarely happens. x__x)

Hayzel, I'd also like to point out that some of your sources are clearly biased too (I mean really, every source has some bias), and personal experience isn't always the end all...Just because it's like that for you, doesn't mean it's like that for everyone--yet you seem to think it is.

When I tend to quote sources that are biased, I quote multiple ones. Like with the statistics on homeschooling, one was from the HSLDA, which is why I quotes others from the census and an Education Association. I'd also like to just say that the idea Teachers should be paid more is based completely on opinion, as the numbers indicate they should be able to live comfortable lives.

Teachers are only paid for 10 months out of the year, and some states (like NC) forced teachers to take mandatory RETROACTIVE pay cuts the last couple of years. Just in case, that means they had money taken out of a current year's check two months in a row to cover the pay cut from the previous year's salary, in addition to the paycut continuing to be active. SO they're taking MORE money from people who are making less than they made the year before. So all this talk of "they get paid so much for only working 10 months a year" is using data to distort the facts, because technically they're only getting paid for HALF the work they do. And that's before all the things that get taken out of their paychecks.

Sources would be nice...

Frankly, you should probably be listening more and arguing less about the nature of public schools because again, if you're going to teach in the future...you need to be aware of what you're getting yourself into, and I spent my entire life with a public school teacher. I fully support your endeavor to be a teacher, if your heart is in the right place and you really believe that educating young minds is REALLY what drives you, then by all means, go for it. But understand that it is a thankless, taxing job that you only get paid for part of, and trust me, you can talk all you want about how teachers make so much more than poverty level, and how "being able to get summer work is a pretty good gig," but I promise you it doesn't add up to NEARLY as much as you think, once you factor in all the things you have to pay for just to live on your own. You know, mortgage/rent, car note, car insurance, health insurance, dental, vision, medicines, life insurance, homeowner's/renter's insurance, the cost of raising children (look up the average annual cost of raising one child extrapolated over 18 years) plus savings for emergencies (because kids are accident prone and shit breaks all the time: setting an arm in 1997 cost $990 dollars WITH teacher's health insurance. That's a $990 dollar CO-PAY, mind you, not the total from which insurance is subtracted. To say nothing of other major medical procedures that a child WILL have to have like tonsil and adenoid removal, appendectomies, broken bones, trips to the ER for triage, doctor's visits every two weeks for a year before the tonsils come out, chicken pox...)

Part of the issue in WI is that public workers are paying very, very small amounts towards their pensions and such and they want to raise it a few percent, even though it'd still be lower than the private sector unions.

But again your talking down on me as if I don't know what's coming. I understand what it means to be a teacher, My mother is a teacher, my grandfather is a teacher, my aunt is a teacher, and so are a couple good friends of mine. The pay isn't luxurious but it's doable and my family and I have lived with less than what any of these teachers earn. My dad makes less than $20,000 a year, yet we manage to live comfortably without debt, and there's 5 in my family. My mom earns a little bit as an editor of a website, but it's only commissions here and there, I make more with my programming.

You can consider the data, that teachers make X above poverty level, but you then have to subtract cost of living, expenses, AND THEN you have to consider THE JOB THAT TEACHERS DO. Teachers are responsible for the molding of the minds of the youth of America, arguably the single most important job in our society, and like ALL civil servants they do not get paid nearly enough for the responsibilities they are handed. And really, you think that working 10 and 12 hours days, being paid for half the work you do, and then having to go get a job at a gas station, or planting trees with the forest service, or teaching summer school, or spending a summer babysitting a bunch of delinquent (and I mean like they have criminal records delinquent) teenagers just so you can feed your family is a "good gig" then you've got kind of a skewed idea of what a good gig is.

Summer school isn't just for delinquents, it's also for kids who want to get ahead. My fiance's mother works for the state in accounting. She works 8 hour days, and still doesn't have enough to pay the bills so she works lifting boxes another 4-6 hours in the evening and on weekends she runs Pampered Chef parties. Her total salary doesn't reach $30,000 a year yet she works all the time to maintain the household her husband left her in. Teachers have a tough job, but you've not provided any sources to statistics that show teachers don't get paid as much as my sources say they're paid.

And when you start talking about "average teacher salaries" you're talking about college professors and doctors, tenure teachers in post-secondary education institutions, private school, and public school, including both primary and secondary institutions. You will need at LEAST four years of college for your bachelor's...and if you intend to make tenure you have to spend at least 4 years teaching (at starting teacher salary, by the way, which in the state of north carolina, just so you know: is 27 grand a year.)

Starting salaries are always low and go up over time. And no, if you looked at my source it was referring to High School teachers only actually. Yeah, I'm going to school for four years but after I get out I don't have to work, although I'll probably want to. And I'm not limited to public school teaching, I've been told by my teachers that Math teachers are needed enough that they get to pretty much pick their choice of schools. We can say teachers should get more money all we want, but the other issue is that it's the tax-payers paying for their salaries. My parents chose to homeschool me but they still had to pay for teachers salaries. The typical school gives 30+% of the budget to teachers, while the other 70% goes to maintenance, supplies, etc. So the question is how much do you burden the rest of the population to allow teachers to live in luxury?

Originally Posted by Hayzel

When I tend to quote sources that are biased, I quote multiple ones. Like with the statistics on homeschooling, one was from the HSLDA, which is why I quotes others from the census and an Education Association. I'd also like to just say that the idea Teachers should be paid more is based completely on opinion, as the numbers indicate they should be able to live comfortable lives.



Sources would be nice...



Part of the issue in WI is that public workers are paying very, very small amounts towards their pensions and such and they want to raise it a few percent, even though it'd still be lower than the private sector unions.

But again your talking down on me as if I don't know what's coming. I understand what it means to be a teacher, My mother is a teacher, my grandfather is a teacher, my aunt is a teacher, and so are a couple good friends of mine. The pay isn't luxurious but it's doable and my family and I have lived with less than what any of these teachers earn. My dad makes less than $20,000 a year, yet we manage to live comfortably without debt, and there's 5 in my family. My mom earns a little bit as an editor of a website, but it's only commissions here and there, I make more with my programming.



Summer school isn't just for delinquents, it's also for kids who want to get ahead. My fiance's mother works for the state in accounting. She works 8 hour days, and still doesn't have enough to pay the bills so she works lifting boxes another 4-6 hours in the evening and on weekends she runs Pampered Chef parties. Her total salary doesn't reach $30,000 a year yet she works all the time to maintain the household her husband left her in. Teachers have a tough job, but you've not provided any sources to statistics that show teachers don't get paid as much as my sources say they're paid.



Starting salaries are always low and go up over time. And no, if you looked at my source it was referring to High School teachers only actually. Yeah, I'm going to school for four years but after I get out I don't have to work, although I'll probably want to. And I'm not limited to public school teaching, I've been told by my teachers that Math teachers are needed enough that they get to pretty much pick their choice of schools. We can say teachers should get more money all we want, but the other issue is that it's the tax-payers paying for their salaries. My parents chose to homeschool me but they still had to pay for teachers salaries. The typical school gives 30+% of the budget to teachers, while the other 70% goes to maintenance, supplies, etc. So the question is how much do you burden the rest of the population to allow teachers to live in luxury?

My SOURCE of knowledge for the retroactive paycuts: is my fucking father. How many times do I have to tell you that he's a teacher? Or do you think that teachers don't know what teachers get paid?

Starting salary goes up when you get tenure, after you've been working as a teacher at base salary for four years. Want a source for that too? My dad's a teacher.

I wasn't talking about summer school: some teachers don't have that option. My dad, for the record, is a science teacher, and summer school was NEVER an option for him, not all systems do summer school programs like that.

My father worked for an organization called WAMY for a couple of summers, which deals with delinquent teenagers.

And actually, I cited a source listing base and tenure salaries across all states in this country...or does that not count as a source for some reason?

Obviously, first-hand account resources of someone in the profession isn't good enough, web sources aren't good enough.

Jog on, little girl. Jog on.

When I tend to quote sources that are biased, I quote multiple ones. Like with the statistics on homeschooling, one was from the HSLDA, which is why I quotes others from the census and an Education Association. I'd also like to just say that the idea Teachers should be paid more is based completely on opinion, as the numbers indicate they should be able to live comfortable lives.

That's true, but I also presented a pretty good case (see the end of my post which you ignored)--I think of why teachers should be paid more--they can't afford to live and work in the same area.

----------

"My grandfather was a teacher in Burlington. He had a good pension system, at that point." But how long will teachers be able to count on good pensions?

In the past fiscal year alone, Washington paid out $2.7 billion, in state employee pensions. "We just can't afford that," Governor Chris Gregoire said as she proposed changes to Washington's retirement system.

Washington state budget, future pensions weighing on teachers - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

Most education contracts call for teachers to be in school about 6 1/2 hours a day. That's not enough to do a proper job, say teachers.

It takes time to draw up lesson plans, prepare materials, grade tests and fill out various forms mandated by school districts. Result: a pile of homework so high it would make a valedictorian swoon.

Indeed, teachers routinely talk of having two or three extra hours of work each day, beyond the strict terms of their employment agreements. Add in unpaid supervision of extracurricular activities, helping troubled students, and a raft of other volunteer tasks, and you get even more time working off the clock

Do teachers have it easy? - Jul. 28, 2003

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- A University of North Carolina study says the rising cost of housing in some coastal areas means teachers, police officers and other so-called "essential workers" can't afford to live where they work.

The study was commissioned by the North Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations, which tries to help communities build their economies. It was presented today at the Statehouse by lawmakers who represent fast-growing areas where housing prices are a problem for low-paid workers.

The study focused on Brunswick County, where the median value of privately owned homes rose almost eight percent between 2000 and 2005. Rental rates rose more than five percent.

The average wage in the county for all occupations rose only two-and-a-half percent over the same period.

Study says police, teachers can't afford to live in Brunswick County | WWAY NewsChannel 3 | Wilmington NC News

A basic educational challenge is not that teachers are raking it in, but that they are underpaid. If we want to compete with other countries, and chip away at poverty across America, then we need to pay teachers more so as to attract better people into the profession.

Until a few decades ago, employment discrimination perversely strengthened our teaching force. Brilliant women became elementary school teachers, because better jobs weren’t open to them. It was profoundly unfair, but the discrimination did benefit America’s children.

These days, brilliant women become surgeons and investment bankers — and 47 percent of America’s kindergarten through 12th-grade teachers come from the bottom one-third of their college classes (as measured by SAT scores). The figure is from a study by McKinsey & Company, “Closing the Talent Gap.”

Changes in relative pay have reinforced the problem. In 1970, in New York City, a newly minted teacher at a public school earned about $2,000 less in salary than a starting lawyer at a prominent law firm. These days the lawyer takes home, including bonus, $115,000 more than the teacher, the McKinsey study found.

We all understand intuitively the difference a great teacher makes. I think of Juanita Trantina, who left my fifth-grade class intoxicated with excitement for learning and fascinated by the current events she spoke about. You probably have a Miss Trantina in your own past.

One Los Angeles study found that having a teacher from the 25 percent most effective group of teachers for four years in a row would be enough to eliminate the black-white achievement gap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/op...13kristof.html