On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:29:27 GMT, Mountain Goat
<rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:37:37 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:24:19 GMT, Mountain Goat
>><rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>>>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>>>>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>>>
>>>Name someone who has been taxed to 'subsistence levels'. You cannot
>>>and you know you cannot so this is a red herring (sorry if you don't
>>>like 'red' things).
>>
>>
>>Actually, it's fairly easy to point up.
>>Consider the damage tax hikes do to the economy, and the hgood that
>>tax cuts do. Clearly, the levels are too high when even a small cut
>>has such a pronounced effect.
>>
>Prove the alleged 'damage'. Since all except the most rosy coloured
>glasses republicans agree that Bush's tax cuts (even if he had got all
>of them) will do Butkus to improve the economy (Read what the
>Congressional Budget Office had to say for one) and will run up the
>debt thereby ensuring future inflation as the government has to
>compete for borrowed money with business.
Bunk
You're calling Greenspan a "rosy coloured glasses republican"?
Apparently, I ahve a better idea of Canadian politics than you do of
US politics, if this comment is an example.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:2i0mfvk6m5osrkc06gv2d7tr1pgjao3939@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:31:16 GMT, Good Guy
> <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >We have this socialist system that says all teachers get paid the same
...
> >the only difference is how long they have worked!!!
>
> [1] I find it quaint that you call teachers' salary scales
> "socialist". I'd guess that you are a proud conservative of some
> stripe or other. You have no objection when ideas that you support
> are called free enterprise horrors, have you?
>
> [2] In fact teachers in Ontario are paid according to three criteria:
> qualifications, responsibilities, and experience.
>
> a) experience
>
> Beginning teachers are learning on the job. They require a good deal
> more close supervision and oversight than do veteran teachers.
> Frequently, they make up to some extent for their limited skills with
> their great enthusiasm. The best school staffs include devoted young
> people and dedicated veterans.
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong in acknowledging - through higher
> pay - the greater contribution that a veteran teacher is able to make
> to a school. In private industry it is the norm to pay the best
> people more.
>
> b) qualifications
>
> Additional money is paid to those with specialist qualifications and
> higher levels of academic achievement.
>
> These most often make for better teaching, although more particularly
> at higher grade levels. It does matter whether or not a teacher has a
> sophisticated grasp of his or her subject.
>
> c) responsibilities
>
> Heads of departments are rewarded with additional salaries, and in
> some cases additional free time to supervise the teachers working in
> their subject area.
>
****************************************************************************
*****
> Attempts to replace this sort of approach with what is usually
> decribed as "merit-based" salaries for teachers, have been put forward
> repeatedly, and have always failed miserably. Few have lasted more
> than several years.
>
> This appears to be because *effective teaching* is a highly complex
> art and science.
>
> Anyone can teach. A relative few can teach really well.
>
> What some people look for in a teacher is quite different than what
> others look for. In fact, what some people call success, others call
> failure, because they are not able to agree ahead of time what it is
> that the best teachers do.
>
> They also may differ as to what outcomes matter more - those have to
> do only with academic prowess or those that involve character
> development.
>
> For many decades some of the very best minds in government and in
> education have attempted to institute the payment of teachers by merit
> rather than by years on the job. All of them have had to acknowledge
> failure.
>
> You can decide that those involved were not as bright as you are.
>
> Or you can decide that what you want does not appear to be practical
> and possible.
But John, and I preface this comment with an acknowledgement that I have not
thought much about possible answers, nor do I feel qualified to weigh in on
what the answer should be, surely you cannot believe that there is no way to
define and effectively measure the "quality" of a teacher's job performance?
And I must say, saying "the best minds in government" is not really saying
very much VBG. As to the "in education" part, there is a degree of conflict
caused by self-interest in maintaining the status quo.
I have a fundamental problem in believing that any job cannot have objective
measurement criteria established that at least approximate a reasonable
measure of merit.