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

OK. Let's do that then.

Either way, we need more time in school, especially for the students with the most needs.

As it is, many schools open their doors during vacations to feed kids, and offer "programs". They just don't teach them. So, we get lots of the costs associated with running a school, and none of the learning.

 

Why shouldn't the school day be longer, btw?

It's not like most of the kids have to get home to work on the farm.

Why should schools work on bankers' hours?

Again, as it is, we currently have to pay for "after school programs" for kids whose parents are working. Why not just have a longer school day?

 

I don't know a single school around here that opens for anything other than summer school. But your area might be different.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.

 

The parents at these expensive private schools aren't fools. They want more individual attention. I wanted it for my kid, too.

How many parents would take a great teacher in a classroom with 20 kids over a great teacher in a classroom with 30 kids? Answer: Every fucking one of them.

More work for more pay? Why would that improve the percentage of good teachers?

 

Because that would hurt the national pastime of fucking parents out of as much money as possible.

 

Because it costs more money and there are unfortunately very few of us willing to pay for it.

 

We get what we deserve.

 

Sure, they want it. Does it make a difference?

Is that an option? It's not the current option. My choice is a real world question. Yours is pie in the sky.

Yes. More work for more pay. Is that a bad thing?

Why would it improve the percentage of good teachers?

Well, if we go from 20 kids per class to 30, we need 1/3 fewer teachers, right? I'm suggesting we keep the best 2/3 and pay them more.[/QUOTE]

 

It doesn't have to cost that much more.

The fixed costs don't change. You're talking about a little more labor, but we're saving money by not paying for after school programs, and by increased economic activity.

 

You might be able to go from 20 kids to 30 with the lower-level classes, but not the upper-level ones. So no, you won't need 1/3 fewer teachers.

Also, as soon as you go from 20 to 30 in the lower-level classes, the success rate will drop. So you can't really do that, either.

You should stop trying to "improve" education. You suck at it.

 

Says who? Why are college classes routinely much larger?