"Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com> wrote on Sunday, April 09, 2000
> Teachers are hardly low paid. The median teacher salary for a job that
> only takes 3/4 of the year (and provides over a month of vacation during
> the school year), is above $30,000, for an annualized salary of
> $40,000.00. Not bad at all.
For a person with a Bachelor's degree, certification and a requirement to
update their eduction every three years? I was planning on being a science
education teacher specializing in computer science. I put myself through
college doing programming on the side. By the end of my freshman year, I
was making more than the starting salary for teachers in Florida. By the
time I finished my sophmore year, I was offered a job paying twice what a
teacher makes here. I wrapped up my two years into an Associate's Degree
and switched my major to Business Administration. By the time I got my B.A,
I was making triple what a teacher makes here. A job is low-pay when it
can't compete with other industries seeking the same skills. Schools here
get the worst students or the ones that are anti-money and take the low pay
for altruistic reasons.
> The only problem with the plan is letting
> the NEA get to meddle in the curriculum. I would not accept a plain old
> teacher for such an important job. Anyone who teaches such a course must
> have training in constitutional law, be a veteran, etc.
Ahhh.... I thought there was more to it. I couldn't believe that you
really would let a regular school teacher from the Liberal NEA rate students
on their right to vote and bear arms. This makes more sense.
> The civics courses in this country have been gutted by the NEA et al
> over the past 40 years in order to make the population ignorant,
> pliable, and easy to program with propaganda.
This is the real problem. You want the state to have this sort of control,
as long as you get to define what sort of teacher exists. As soon as
someone else replaces your teacher with their teacher, the system is no
> Since the Constitution is not a matter of partisan politics (anyone who
> attempts to subvert it is, in fact, committing treason), then there
> would be no such thing as 'buting the party line' by the kids. If they
> want to be enfranchised, they pass the course, just as if they want to
> drive a car, they pass a course. Don't like it? Why not? You folks are
> arguing the same thing for carrying a gun. Majority rule has killed more
> people in the last century than anything else.
I agree. Majority rule is scary. That's why I cringe at the idea that the
right to vote or bear arms could be based on an education system that is
controlled by majority rule (the state). But where did you get the idea
that the Constitution is not a matter of partisan politics. Certainly the
gun debate should have shown that there is not general agreement on what the
Constitution says or means. You are sure that your interpretation is
correct and that the others are deliberately dishonest. What you don't
realize is that the others have the same opinion as you. In such a
situation, how could anyone agree on whose interpretation of the
Constitution should be taught?
Your plan doesn't sound bad. I just don't see how you can implement it
using the state or its education system as a tool. Such tools always
degenerate down to the lowest common denominator. Given our two-party
system, we will never have agreement about what should be taught in schools.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> Certified Consultant, Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:10 MDT