"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected.

Not in any school district I've seen. At my daughter's HS, any teacher that
has a "0" hour class (7:00AM start) is gone at 2:00 PM. Most of their drudge
work is handled by TA's (student assistants)

This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

See TA's above.



As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.


Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society.

That's your assessment; no one here made that connection except you.

It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

I wonder why!
Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

I can see how the public schools taught you logic....NOT!

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work.

(More examples of public school intellect)
Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
(More examples of public school intellect)

We rest our case!


Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?

Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?