You're using a book that discusses the importance of individualized instruction to argue for larger class sizes?

I think you missed the point of the book

Certainly I missed it, I haven't read it. I just read that it discusses how beneficial individualized instruction is.

Anyways, if the book argues that it is not going to be a significant difference to teach 50 kids in a room vs. 15 kids because teens are more "mature" than we give them credit for, I'd say the author is using the studies inaccurately or just hasn't spent any real time among teens in a classroom setting...like almost everyone in this thread. DS point is pretty laughable, and I'm not even usually a DS hater. It's just an example of being out of touch. The best high school teacher in the world is going to be very diminished in effectiveness with 800 kids than with 8, and they would be the first to tell you that.

treat teens like kids and they act like kids
empower them and something awesome things happen

sure, your role and your power will be diminished, but things will be better overall

give up your dominion

We should just let teenagers teach themselves.

Usually when this is the case it's best to not comment.

As opposed to the rest of the thread where people who aren't teachers and whose only exposure to the field is their hazy memories of being a student are arguing with, among others, actual teachers about how the requirements and difficulty of teaching?

Yeah, I mean, let's not pretend this is a place where it's considered acceptable to reference a book and act like that proves something. If you have a point, make it.

From a review at Amazon...a wall of text, obviously, but each example (Lord of the Flies, Lolita, etc. is better than the last).

yeah, maybe. But at the same time teachers are not the most objective source when it comes to "are teachers overpaid?"

Who, precisely, is the objective source that can inform us as to whom is overpaid?

citizens who are forced by the govt to be customers? please tell me where my bias stems from. i went to the only decent public HS in my city, and 70k wouldve been underpaying some of the teachers but 50k wouldve been grossly overpaying others. while im sure almost all of them put in a decent AMOUNT of work, it was beyond clear that many had little idea as to HOW they should best teach.

the system is set up so poorly when ppl who have less than a clue are put in charge of teaching.

eta: @flywf, anyone under the age of 25 still probably has a good recollection of what at least HS was like.

Who, precisely, do you think sets the teacher salaries? This may matter...

Attending high school and teaching high school are different activities.

lol, please. you think unions being a part of the picture doesnt automatically lead to unfair/inefficient pricing?

Yeah, I know. not sure what difference that makes, I can still vividly recall which teachers I had were the best and which were the worst. Not only that but for 9 out of every 10 of them, I could tell the reason for it. fwiw my "surrogate mom" was a teacher so I think I have a decent view into what happens behind the scenes.

This is a totally preposterous claim.

if teachers were overpaid, schools should lock them out and just sign up the droves of ppl willing to do the job for cheaper

that is poor logic ducy

lol yeah, if only this completely hypothetical solution were to be implemented in real life. wait, what? 88 teachers rounded up and fired up in rhode island you say!? someone should make a thread about that!

edit damn you qdmcg.

if baseball players were overpaid, owners should lock them out and just sign up the droves of ppl willing to do the job for cheaper

Not only is this non-responsive (let's try and be more specific than "the govt" if we're going to argue about pricing), but as xorbie writes:

*

Attending high school does not make one an expert on how to teach high school. Nor does it even give one particularly good insight into what teaching high school entails, as is obvious from this thread.

how is it non-responsive. i realize HOW they get set - i lived with a teacher for almost 2 years. you seem to be implying (and correct me if im wrong so that i can properly answer it) that the pricing is fair. im saying it isnt on the basis of how it gets determined. thank god rhode island finally got a clue.

and sorry for getting all John galt here, but I fail to see how you and xorbie think the teacher union in this case doesnt lead to anything but inefficient pricing of teacher salaries.
i recognize that it has its positives, but saying that it doesnt lead to overpaying is hilarious at best.

lol i didnt say it did. but it DOES put me in a situation where I have 4 years to figure out who is and isnt a good teacher and why.

Just so you know, almost all public contracts (and non public also, its pretty much standard language in any contract) have No Strike / No Lockout language and many states' laws prevent public unions from striking anyways.

Yes, bargaining for a contract that sets wages is totally unfair.

when it leads to terrible teachers getting paid the same as amazing teachers, yea. you are right, its unfair. which is why i led into this whole thing by noting that I had good teachers who were underpaid and bad teachers who were overpaid.

The reason prices are inefficient (assuming they are, which is just a random claim you have made) is that the consumer isn't paying them. There is nothing inherent to unions that makes prices unfair or inefficient, unless the union is so strong as to effectively capture the entire labor market.

It leads to a higher pay than there would be in the absence of structured negotiation. How is that a problem? Teachers should be able to leverage their worth to society into as high a salary as the market can bear.

Now, as it happens, teacher's unions do a lot of damage because of the way the marketplace is structured. I'm no expert in the subject so I won't say more than that.

So when you wrote "the govt" what you really meant to say was...

I'm completely serious here. I don't see the point of discussing whether negotiations for salaries are fair or efficient unless I can ascertain whether you even know what the parties are.


You already wrote that labor prices are necessarily unfair if a union is involved. I disagree. I also don't know how you are determining what a "fair price" is.

Setting aside the rest of this, your idea of a "good" teacher may not be universal.

One way to enforce this, for example, is for union labor to forfeit two days of pay for every day on strike.

If you think its 'unfair' I don't think you know how unions work in any way.