Is it wrong to subsidize lower earning children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Noble professions”. Lol. In most circles that is code for “avoiding real life.”

So teachers are avoiding real life? Home health care providers are avoiding real life? Frankly, I think they're much more clued in to real life than someone who sits in an office sending emails all day.

Have you seen the high school and college grades of public school teachers? Most are C students, aren’t engaged teachers at all, so the curricula and expectations keep getting dumbed down. Use of tech is also a big bad “teaching” crutch.

I’d gladly pay up for a smart educated, real world experience teacher in their 40s than the 20-something messes we left.

Data show teachers have little long-term impacts on educational outcomes. For the vast majority, their work isn't valuable. The sad truth is it doesn't matter who teaches midwits.

Agree, most teachers are so bad they just parrot back the incorrect terrible out-of-the box curriculum some teacher admin selected and over paid for.

The good teachers fix the curriculum errors and typos and ambiguous poorly written materials, as well as provide real feedback on students work and report cards. Not just a numerical grade. Lame.

Good teachers also supplement the unit with a good handout or two to drive home the lesson and instruction. Not just the BS boxed curriculum riddled either obvious errors.

Finally a good teacher actually teaches the lessons! With frameworks and steps. Not just tosses out a worksheet or states doing examples, or worse, tells the kids to read it themselves and try out the problems..

So a bad curriculum plus a bad teacher indeed has no impact; we agree.
Hence parents who see how terrible public school is, esp k-8, hire tutors and supplement.

[Anonymous]

Agree. The midwits fall through the cracks. And are often “taught” by adult midwits.