BLM chapter calls American flag 'symbol of hatred'

[LV426]

That's the same logic the RWNJs use to paying CEO's multimillion dollar salaries with golden parachutes while the employees are part-time (meaning 39 hours, no benefits) minimum wage earners. Obviously some adjustments need to be made.

As for raising the pay of teachers in schools, that's a State thing and even a local thing. It's also a supply and demand thing. No doubt Bulletbob can make more money giving handjobs at the community dinner table than most teachers (see list below) but teachers aren't forced to work anywhere. It's a choice. As the links and graphic show, teachers can make good money depending upon cost of living. Besides salary, there's benefits. Health and retirement plans, pensions, etc all should be figured into the equation. Also note that, while $57,813 was the average Texas teacher pay in 2017, start pay is $33,660 for college-debt laden newbie teacher. By year Five s/he is making $38,880...and still making college debt payments. BTDT.

There are smart ways to go to college and there as less smart ways.

That said, as a grandparent and good citizen, I would like to see the educational opportunities of all the kids in Texas receive a world class K-12 education. Not all are getting it. That's often indicated by what they pay teachers.

BTW, just because a teacher works for peanuts rather than a 50% raise across the country doesn't mean they're a bad teacher. Educated, sane and intelligent people know money isn't everything. There's also a difference in cost of living, that's important to understanding the truth.

https://prezi.com/vvmp4olb-njg/individuals-groups-and-institutions/

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_211.50.asp?current=yes

https://howmuch.net/articles/average-teacher-salary-by-state

https://usafacts.org/data/topics/pe...ucation/public-school-teacher-salary-average/

Just FYI, the median income in this country is about $57K...so more than half the teachers in that graphic do not even make the median income.

And we shouldn't settle on who we hire as teacher either.

We should make public school teacher wages competitive with hedge fund managers....in fact, even higher than hedge fund managers since teachers do something beneficial and hedge fund managers do not.

 

[LV426]

You didn't form any false conclusions.

I know...you did.

You knew that by giving an average it does not apply to all students equally.

So that begs the question...if you knew that it wasn't applied evenly to all students, why did you bring it up?

What were you trying to accomplish by bringing that up?

What did you think the natural progression of the conversation would be?

Did you not think I would hold it to scrutiny?

You spend 20 posts telling everyone what they already know because you want to make some partisan issue of a simple fact.

Not simple, *simplistic*.

You sacrificed nuance and accuracy to make an illiberal argument against education funding.

 

[Flash]

I know...you did.

Nope. I understood it perfectly as did all other JPP posters and anybody who read the information.

So that begs the question...if you knew that it wasn't applied evenly to all students, why did you bring it up?

What were you trying to accomplish by bringing that up?

What did you think the natural progression of the conversation would be?

Did you not think I would hold it to scrutiny?

Because the topic was educational per pupil expenditures and it was important to know that it has steadily increased.

No one would discuss spending spread evenly across all students because we all know that does not exist and is not possible.

You didn't hold me to any scrutiny. You just tried to inform everybody of something they all knew.

You sacrificed nuance and accuracy to make an illiberal argument against education funding.

Another erroneous assumption on your part. Anyone who interpreted that as "against education funding" is just trying to make a partisan argument over simple factual information. Pointing out that spending increased at a fastest rate in over a decade is a positive development for education--not against education funding.

If I had included in the post that increased spending did not apply equally to all students the other posters would think I was being patronizing by telling them something they all know by stating simplistic trivia.

I also did not say cost of living affects educational spending across the nation or that educational spending does not equate to educational achievement but that is so self-evident it was unnecessary.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Just FYI, the median income in this country is about $57K...so more than half the teachers in that graphic do not even make the median income.

And we shouldn't settle on who we hire as teacher either.

We should make public school teacher wages competitive with hedge fund managers....in fact, even higher than hedge fund managers since teachers do something beneficial and hedge fund managers do not.

Median across 50 states...and 330 Meeellion people. LOL

Isn't a more truthful view that the pays of teacher for each state should be compared to that state's median income? For example, $57K is pretty fucking good in Bumfuck, Mississippi.

I looooove authoritarian assholes who begin a sentence with "We should make...."

 

[LV426]

Median across 50 states...and 330 Meeellion people.

So all 330,000,000 people in this country are teachers?

Isn't a more truthful view that the pays of teacher for each state should be compared to that state's median income

No.

You don't attract talent by being frugal.

I looooove authoritarian assholes who begin a sentence with "We should make...."

Yes, it is widely known that it's authoritarian to want teachers to be paid more than hedge fund managers.

 

[LV426]

Nope. I understood it perfectly as did all other JPP posters and anybody who read the information.

You can convince yourself of anything.

Because the topic was educational per pupil expenditures

Was that the topic or was that you trying to hijack the topic? It's the latter, isn't it?

it was important to know that it has steadily increased.

But it didn't for everyone. And you keep leaving that part out to misrepresent something simplistic and not accurate.

No one would discuss spending spread evenly across all students because we all know that does not exist and is not possible.

Sure it exists and is entirely possible...that's how they fund schools in every other country.

You don't want some students to get the same amount spent on them as others because you're either racist, classist, or both.

What is the reason for not spending the same amount per pupil on every student in the US?

 

[LV426]

You didn't hold me to any scrutiny. You just tried to inform everybody of something they all knew.

But they didn't know that.

YOU didn't even know that until I pointed it out by holding your ludicrous, simplistic bullshit to scrutiny.

What do you think this whole part of the thread has been about? Holding your bullshit to scrutiny.

So you didn't qualify that statistic earlier, and you continue to not qualify it because doing so undermines your argument.

This is just another variation of the same sophistry you do by habit; "apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit".

 

[LV426]

Another erroneous assumption on your part. Anyone who interpreted that as "against education funding" is just trying to make a partisan argument over simple factual information.

NOT SIMPLE.

*SIMPLISTIC*.

There is a massive difference.

You oversimplify the increases of funding, skewed at the top by wealthy school districts, to misrepresent a generalized argument that US students are already well funded.

That's not accurate or true.

The reason is because, unlike every other country in the world, US schools aren't evenly or universally funded....however, students in almost every other country ARE.

So there are no meaningful discrepancies between students in other countries because all those students receive largely the same funding.

But that's not the case in the US; per-pupil spending varies from district-to-district, wildly.

That's why taking an average of US students is inaccurate and untruthful, and why using an aggregated average, as you are doing here, sacrifices the nuance and distinctions that make it impossible to compare spending per pupil on US students vs. students in other countries.

Do you understand that? Do you understand why what you were doing was sophistry? I laid it out pretty clearly, so you should get it.

 

[LV426]

Because the topic was educational per pupil expenditures and it was important to know that it has steadily increased.

But it hasn't increased for everyone, Flash.

And also, the per-pupil expenditure varies wildly by district, because some districts are wealthier than others.

That's not the case in every other country, though...their educational systems aren't funded by property taxes. Theirs are funded directly by the state, so all the students receive largely the same amount spent on them.

But that is definitely not the case in the US...a student at Pacific Palisades Public HS in Los Angeles gets more spent on them than a student at Central HS in Flint. The reason? Pacific Palisades is in one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and Central HS is in one of the poorest.

 

[Flash]

But it hasn't increased for everyone, Flash.

Nobody said it increased for everyone

Do you have any support for your claim that all students did not see an increase? If not, it is just conjecture on your part. You have no clue whether it is true or not.

We know they did not all receive an equal increase (*special added note for LV426 who does not understand averages).

 

[Flash]

But they didn't know that.

YOU didn't even know that until I pointed it out by holding your ludicrous, simplistic bullshit to scrutiny.

Of course, we all knew that. You know that because you know what averages are. So do we.

However, you have no support for your claim--you are just assuming. At least I had data showing a 5% increase in per pupil expenditure.

Per pupil does not mean every student (*special note required for LV426).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So all 330,000,000 people in this country are teachers?




No.

You don't attract talent by being frugal.




Yes, it is widely known that it's authoritarian to want teachers to be paid more than hedge fund managers.

Aren't wages, education and cost of living universal problems within the entire United States? Why are you only pushing teachers? Can't most of them be replaced by a robot?

 

[Bulletbob]

You asked what paying teachers more would do to improve education, and I told you in explicit terms precisely how you attract top talent to teach our kids by offering higher wages.

Public Schools should be competing with Wall Street firms for candidates, and they compete by offering competitive wages and benefits, just like any company or institution would in order to attract the best talent.

and it will have little effect if any, we already spend more per child for school them other nations yet have poor performance clearly the issue isnt money

 

[Bulletbob]

Seems you have, but that's an irrelevant side point. Just a curiosity to understand...or be used against one. LOL

Due to all the RW Death Threat fucking morons, and a few LW ones, on the Internet, it's not wise to give out names, addresses and such but I'm good with demographics. White, male, college-educated, middle class retiree is how most groups and institutions see me. There are many other variables too. Region, bilingualism, traveling experience, ability to work and play well with others, etc.

Notice how easily saying "White" first can indicate social problems. Male, of course, is second. LOL

,

we know your a lying coward that about all we need to know

 

[Dutch Uncle]

we know your a lying coward that about all we need to know

Dude, cowards like you always say "we" in order to puff up their pitifully weak egos. Man up and go die in the woods like the old ways.

 

[LV426]

and it will have little effect if any, we already spend more per child for school them other nations yet have poor performance clearly the issue isnt money

No we don't spend more per child for school than other nations because no child is funded the same in this country...since US schools are largely funded by property taxes, that has the effect of dramatically showing a discrepancy between students in each state, even in each district.

For example, Utah spends about $9,200 per pupil whereas New York spends $28,200 per pupil. And even within New York State, the per-pupil spend varies wildly, with parts of upstate NY spending $11,000 per student vs. parts of Westchester, which spends about $25,000 per student.

However, almost every single foreign country spends the same amount per student, largely. There are no wild discrepancies in public school funding in every other country like there is here.

So yes, money is most definitely the issue.

 

[LV426]

Aren't wages, education and cost of living universal problems within the entire United States?

Why do you think some US students should have less money spent on their education than others?

What is your argument against funding every student equally in the US?

 

[LV426]

Nobody said it increased for everyone

You did earlier in this thread when you chose the path of sophistry and didn't qualify anything you said.

o you have any support for your claim that all students did not see an increase?

Flash, that's YOUR JOB, not mine.

You are the one who is expected to know the topic you're introducing into this debate, not the people you're trying to debate with.

DO THE FUCKING WORK YOU LAZY ASSHOLE.

 

[LV426]

Of course, we all knew that. You know that because you know what averages are. So do we.

Flash, your argument was that American students saw increases in funding and get more spent on them than students in other countries, but that is simply not true.

You can't compare US spending per pupil with other countries because US spending per pupil varies wildly between states, between counties, even between districts.

For example, Utah spends about $9,200 per pupil, and NY spends about $28,200 per pupil. In NY, parts of upstate NY spend about $11,000 per pupil, and parts of the NY metro area and Long Island spend about $40,000 per pupil.

So you can't compare other countries to ours because of how wildly variant per pupil spending is.

Also, we are the ONLY COUNTRY ON EARTH that funds our schools with property taxes. That leads to uneven outcomes by design. Poor students have less economic mobility because less is spent on their education than wealthy students, because school district funding is not even across the country.

So that's why this argument you're making is a stupid, sophist one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No we don't spend more per child for school than other nations because no child is funded the same in this country...since US schools are largely funded by property taxes, that has the effect of dramatically showing a discrepancy between students in each state, even in each district.

For example, Utah spends about $9,200 per pupil whereas New York spends $28,200 per pupil. And even within New York State, the per-pupil spend varies wildly, with parts of upstate NY spending $11,000 per student vs. parts of Westchester, which spends about $25,000 per student.

However, almost every single foreign country spends the same amount per student, largely. There are no wild discrepancies in public school funding in every other country like there is here.

So yes, money is most definitely the issue.

Thanks for the numbers. Now, what is the difference in cost of living between those states?