RightatNYU said:
Despite your argument, I see no evidence that the reason kids are becoming more troublesome is because violence against the students has fallen from favor. Educators still have enough weapons in their arsenals to do what they need to maintain order. And nowadays, with so many more students attending or planning on attending college, kids are more concerned with how they do in school. The vast majority of students who are seriously disruptive in school have problems at home, which is indicative of a growing problem outside of the schools. Paddling won't do anything to resolve this problem.
No it won't. And frankly, I'm not nearly as concerned with paddling, but rather the precedence of teacher's being reprimanded for their disciplinary actions. I do believe that anyone, any teacher, is capable of crossing the line. And for that they should be reprimanded. BUT, there is a growing trend to take away all disciplinary leverage from teachers and administrators. This is, in turn, creating a back lash of over bearing "no tolerance" policies that do not solve the problem of dicspline in the school, but rather simply remove the children from the school altogether, which does not cure the fact that the child in question needs to be taught discipline by someone, instead of being tossed out by those who can, if the system is correct, could teach these things to the student.
My point is that it is a free market, and whether or not you like sports, millions do. You frankly don't have the right to regulate the pay of athletes.
No fears, I personally am not going to regulate the right of pay to any athletes. But you fool yourself if you believe that it is an absolute free market. Again I state to you that gas prices are regulated by government. Equal rights laws regulate the pay of genders and races. It is not a completely free market, and there is just as much reason for the government to put such stipulations on athletes and actors as there is for them to put them on any other busineses in regards to sexual or racial equality.
And I completely disagree with you about the impact of athletes on the lives of children. Do you seriously think that a 60 year old 2nd grade teacher will have as much impact on the hopes and dreams of a 7 year old as Arod or Curt Shilling? What about the millions of kids in impoverished countries who no matter how hard they work in school, will never escape poverty? The only avenue of escape for those kids is sports.
This is an opinion matter. But I will give you mine, let you rebuttle, and we'll end it at that. Fair? Yes, I do believe that a 60 year old teacher is teaching a child to read and write. She is giving the student knowledge and teaching them means of direction. Arod and Curt Shilling while can be inspiring for a child to persue their dreams, does not teach such fundamental principles. Furthermore, it is, in some form, a false message that you too can be as great as these men at that sport, because the vast majority of students will not be. The professional sports route can in some circumstances be one of few escapes from poverty (although arguably, a good education from a compitent teacher with good pay as incentive would also be an equally realistic ticket for upward mobility). But the number of professional athletes who make it are, as you say, very limited. And it is certainly not necessary that these athletes make millions of dollars for someone to break out of poverty, correct?
I think 50,000 for 9 months of work is being paid well. And you're right, teachers are paid less than athletes and actors. A large part of that is the replaceability and profitability of teachers. Jim Carrey can demand 20 million per picture because he will most likely bring in 80 million in ticket sales. The same cannot be said for teachers. And again, contrary to what you claim, I believe sports can teach as much as school itself does. And from the beginning of history to the present, the most prescient educators have agreed with me.
Okay, but 50,000 a year is not average salary for a teacher according to NSTA. It is more around 37-38,000 it appears. And of course this is before the government (that is funding them to begin with) takes "their share" away from them. The problem is that we fail to look at the fact that just because a teacher can be replaced as far as there being a warm body in front of the classroom does not mean that the quality of education that a better teacher would provide. Teachers, in the general sense, are not hard to find, just like actors, in a general sense, are not hard to find. But quality teachers, such as Dr Griffith (one of the most inspiring of my teachers) is the equvialent to Jim Carey. And while Jim Carey may bring in 80 million in ticket sales in a span of two years, an incredibly qualified teacher will bring billions to the government by educating students to be better economists and more effecient politicians over the span of their life times.
I dissagree that sports can teach as many effective methods and principles as a classroom. I do however agree that there are some wonderful principles in sports. But again, many of the sports that are practiced in growing age are through school, by the very same coaches and teachers that are earning governmental salary within the branch of funds offered to education as a whole.
I think they do make life better than the average teacher. I tried harder in school because a) My sports coaches were my teachers, and b) because we always had to get good grades in order to play. And again, Arod got 13 million because he earned much more than that for the franchise. My professors certainly didn't earn millions for the university.
You were motivated to obtain knowledge because you yourself enjoyed sports. Not because Arod causing you to, but because it was a reward system created within education itself. But, in the end, you are not going to obtain a carreer because of the skills you learned from baseball as much as the skills you learned from the classroom. Again, a professor is not bringing in funds in the same manner as Arod is, but he is certainly, in the long run, leading minds to be better able to bring back money to the government later in their lives. The better education a professor provides, the better prepared and effective their students will be win they enter the world of politics or business. And it is those dollars that come flooding into the government.
And again, contrary to what you claim, I believe sports can teach as much as school itself does. And from the beginning of history to the present, the most prescient educators have agreed with me.
That's another statement I think that you are going to have to show me at least some sort of evidence of. Note that I am not suggesting that sports are not at all a teaching mechanism, just that it is not an equal teaching mechanism. And I simply do not see anyone from the beginning of recorded history arguing that it is. But I will certainly allow you to show me that that is not the case.
Good. Except I was being facetious. Mostly, anyways. While I think the NEA is a waste of money, I also think that just because I don't appreciate something, and don't see the monetary value of something, doesn't mean that there aren't far reaching, unquantifiable societal benefits.
I'm sure there are benefits therein. But one thing you must realize is that it is our job to weigh the value of such benefits. Is it, in the end MORE beneficial for those funds to go the NEA or to teacher's saleries?
My point isnt that it's not legal, it's that it will never be made law. I really can't think of a better way to spur fears of an oppressive central government. Let the market rule.
I'm really amazed at so many people's views that something will NEVER happen. Because history is filled with events that happened regardless of everyone believing they never would. Who knows what events may occur in the next ten to twenty years that may change everything? It only takes one person with a very convincing argument and a bunch of poeple who will follow that person, and perhaps some outlying circumstances undetermined, to change ANY laws or policies. I just think that NEVER is an incredibly bold statement. And regulation, to most, is a very different thing than oppression.