S.C. deputy filmed slamming teen girl out of desk, dragging her away

BTW, I think we can guess what Yorks -- or maybe is wife -- does for a living.

I'm guessing he won't answer my question to Cran.

Tell me Yorks, if you had the choice to put your child in a classroom of 20 kids, with a lousy teacher, or 30 kids with a great teacher, what's your choice?

 

Sounds like a wash -- bigger classes for a slight improvement in teacher quality, assuming the teachers' additional workloads don't affect their performance and preparation. Is your pay increase when you factor in the additional workload?

I think it would do more good to reduce all the class sizes to 20 kids and add more teachers.

 

Of course you do. We already don't have enough good teachers. You want to add more.

When you factor in the savings on health care (insurance) costs, it's even greater.

 

I'm betting YF's suggestion that we reduce the number of teachers is getting some friction from the root vegetable community. After all, fewer teachers means less ... oh, what is it? ... it's on the tip my tongue ... it rhymes with fuse ... what is it? AAAAAAGH, this is gonna drive me crazy!

 

I won't answer your question to Cran because Cran achieved a certain status.

College classes are also too large, but colleges have the luxury of bouncing people out. Public schools aren't able to do that as easily.

Your final question was already answered by someone else -- 20 kids with a great teacher.

Finally, I draw a paycheck (actually several) for education-related work, but it's not for what you think it is. But I do know that most of what you suggest is the usual idiocy spouted by community members who don't have the first clue how to fix the schools.

 

It seems to this humble correspondent that "Let's keep doing the same thing we've been doing, only more of it!" ain't exactly the height of intellectual sophistication, either.

 

You lost your bet then.

Nobody is proposing that we continue understaffing and underpaying.

 

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. Have you been reading selectively again and drawing simplistic conclusions so your brain won't be taxed?

That's a chip up the nose, I'm afraid.

 

In what fantasy world do salaries in a profession go up after the union for that field has been busted?

 

Just to clarify things for you, I'll go out on a skinny limb and attempt an analogy.

(Warning: In the past, sj.com has proved it can't interpret analogies. But nevertheless ...)

Let's say my car is not functioning the way I would like. It still starts, runs, goes from Point A to Point B, etc. But the efficiency is not there.

I could just go willy-nilly and have the entire engine overhauled, even though I don't really know that will fix the issues.

Or I could be sensible about it and work to pinpoint things and then fix those, a couple at a time. Then I would drive the car and see if anything else needs to be fixed.

For the better part of 30 years, the federal government and clueless community members have been overhauling the engine, and then scratching their heads, nads, and ass when the problems not only don't go away, but new ones also surface. They also never drive the car long enough to see the effects their dumb shit has had. They just rush into the next overhaul.

 

That's a perfectly good analogy ... Would you be so kind, however, to point out at least one or two of these overhauls? By that I mean big, substantive, fundamental changes to the way things are done. I'm not NQT-ing you here ... if that's not what you're getting at, fine.

 

What about 25 in a classroom with a good teacher?