Subaroo

I think there are metrics to measure a teacher, more subjective though. If you have other objective ways to measure teachers then lets talk about them, but I think right now we are talking about standardized tests. Standardized tests to determine a teacher's salary do not work.

Right. College professors are experts. K-12 teachers are...teachers.

Well maybe we are talking past each other when we say "merit pay." When I say merit pay, I'm referring to paying teachers based on their students' results on standardized tests. Is this what you mean too?

...and P.E. teachers, and Art teachers, and Music teachers and Shop teachers, and Photo teachers...

This is what other countries are great at, weeding out bad teachers. In other countries teachers almost self police. It is such a sought after profession and requires so much investment to get there that those who do make it take it very seriously. Agreed. Teachers Unions are in the interests of teachers, not students.

Better training and education will yield better results, at least in teaching. Schools need to be encouraged to develop their teachers through things like collaboration, conferences, further education, and peer monitoring. That will produce better teachers. Get better at your job and we'll pay you more. Not, you better make sure your students do well on this test. Teaching is an odd profession where it's kinda hard to evaluate performance.. at least by test results. It creates a whole bunch of problems. And what about this.. my father-in-law just received his second master's degree in (something like, I can't remember exactly...) Early Childhood Special Education. He teaches special education students, half of his students can't even take tests.

Why did you include the second sentence? Do you disagree with the merit pay part? I don't want to assume anything so I'll let you explain before I respond.

bllleeehh... I have to partially agree with this. I'm a fourth year university student, two semesters from obtaining my teaching license in the state of Kansas. I come from a family of educators, and through my professors, family, and fellow students, this topic comes up a lot. While I think that labor unions have done, and continue to do, great things for this country, I have mixed feelings about teachers unions. They do serve a genuine and responsible purpose. Teaching is a profession with many variables and requires a lot of flexibility and freedom, and tenure protects and enables good teachers to be able to find the most effective ways to teach. But tenure is also abused by many teachers as well, and I don't think anyone could disagree with that. Research has shown that the most significant factor in a quality education is the effectiveness of the teacher, but the problem of poor teachers in the US does not rest solely with the teachers unions. Most of the top performing countries are even more heavily unionized than they are here. To elevate education across the board, we need to elevate the profession. We need to attract better applicants to university programs and make obtaining a teaching license harder. Teachers also need to be paid more, not by merit pay , but by the amount of training one has. And I hate the back and forth over education funding. The US already outspends tons of other countries on education, and we still do worse. The problem is not that we don't spend enough on education, it is that we don't spend the money well. Throwing money at our current system might make a little difference, but it will do nothing to improve it to a level to make us competitive. That being said Republicans, doesn't mean we can cut funding to public schools and invest all our money private schools, that doesn't do us much better. The solution with the money thing is to apply it more evenly to public schools. Some schools are great, others are crap, and it has to do with the distribution of funds. Everyone deserves a good education, and it's really not fair to the students that their level of education is based on how much money their parents or neighbors have. The fact is, most great education systems around the world are public and unionized . I support unions on the basis that I support increased workers rights, but I really don't know enough about how other unions operate so I'll have to stop my comments here. I know your beef is with organized labor and you were just using teachers union as the spotlight, so I'll agree with that part, the teachers union really grinds my gears sometimes. I wish we could have the conversation about unions without including teachers unions in the debate... the union is definitely needed, but every now and then I just want to scream "f*** you, teachers union!" Sorry if my education rant was off topic, lets get back to fighting along party lines again

70-80%, but that is because the top 10% control 80% of the nation's wealth. They should be paying the majority of taxes. But even based on this, the tax is effectively proportional, if not regressive. That is inherently unfair. Our tax system is set up to be progressive, but functionally it does not operate that way. That is why liberals are upset. Not because people are rich, but because those who are rich have the means to take advantage and game the system. We are only asking that we all play by the rules, that the rules are fair, and that those who disagree with us do so by using proper grammar.

http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news More dumbshitness for ya.

It's fine to have racist/homophobic/ignorant views, and negative attitudes towards education. But keep them to yourself, don't be a legislator. The problem with the Republican party is that their policies are driven by these beliefs, these views, and these fears of the other. Thankfully, the truth is that the Republican party is getting older and the country is moving forward, eventually the old generation will die and some of your ideas will die with them. In the meantime, stop pretending to be the civilized ones.

http://gawker.com/5949544/arkansas-state-rep-slavery-may-actually-have-been-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-blacks ...and here comes the racist evidence. You guys are a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyD1kuZ31bo&feature;=BFa&list;=WL7A83EADA8B61CE86 More evidence that your party is run by morons. When you have views like this, you deserve to be called names.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/ Here's a fun article about intelligence and political affiliation. But my point about Republicans being dumbasses isn't about intelligence, it is about their quest for education. Republicans demonize education in every facet. And what about (it was something like the Texas Republican Platform) being against "higher ordered thinking skills." Give me a break. Republicans are the definition of ignorance. Pppfffft, talk to me about ignorance, GTFO!

Dude I’ve never said anything here that wasn't true. If you can’t have a dialogue based on what I say and just get butthurt, then go away. You haven’t responded to anything, it’s just, “waaaaa, waaaaa...” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI You belong to a party of dumbasses, and you embrace it.

I never called myself a moderate, and I wouldn't. I am not a moderate, or an independent. But I am both progressive and liberal. Technically they don't mean the same thing, but in the context of American politics they are used interchangeably. Just like 'racist,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe,' and 'dumbass,' can all be used for the word Republican.

No one here is afraid of the label 'Liberal.'

We are not mostly moderates. We are mostly progressives. People think they are conservative because they think it sounds better, they think that is what they are supposed to be. But actually poll after poll shows that the American people have progressive/liberal ideology. Ask them who they identify with, they will say conservatives. Ask them issue by issue, they will reveal themselves to be progressive. Economically...progressive. Socially...progressive. People want tighter gun laws, higher taxes, access to abortion and birth control. And almost every provision in the health reform law is favored by the American people. Even same sex marriage (the last hold out) is shifting to the progressive side. Republicans are a dumbass party with a great marketing team. http://www.alterpolitics.com/politics/new-study-the-american-public-prefers-liberal-policies-which-would-cut-budget-by-437-billion/

For all this argument over this Obamaphone thing, what is the problem with subsidizing cell phones for families in need of assistance?

If we truly put the emphasis on the Value part of MVP, the award would always go to (and should) to a 15+ game winning starting pitcher. This isn't the NBA, just because you have the best player doesn't mean you are going to make the playoffs. The best/most valuable position player can be on a losing team. Who would you rather have? Verlander or Cabrera?

Exactly. Now everyone ignore the fact that the guy who agrees with me is from Orange County

If Cabrera had come up short in one of the categories, like HRs by like one or two, would you still give him the MVP? To me it seems like everyone would vote for Trout, but then those who don't say, "Well, Cabrera won the triple crown, you have to give him the MVP." MVP is a different award than the Triple Crown title (triple crown isn't even an award, I shouldn't even capitalize it). MVP is just that, who would you rather have on your team? Therefore, triple crown great, but it's arbitrary. I would much rather have Trout on my team; his defense, runs scoring, presence. He is of more value to a team. Cabrera just rakes. Plus, I have always suspected Cabrera to be juicing. His evolution from when he was on the Marlins reminds me a lot of A-Rod.

It is regressive because poorer people spend ALL of their money to survive, thus are taxed on ALL of their money they earn. Weathier people only have to spend a very small percentage of their money, and so they only get taxed on that very small percentage. Being taxed on your entire $20,000 salary is a lot different than being taxed on $50,000 out of a $250,000 salary. This is so basic. Seriously. If I have to explain this to you, you shouldn't be allowed in this conversation. It's principle is taught in any intro economics or political science class. You guys are a joke.

Sales/consumption taxes are the least fair type of taxes. It's an obviously regressive tax system and poorer folks are burdened much more heavily by it. This one is pretty simple guys. It's hard to take your conversations seriously when you all bat around the idea that a flat consumption tax is "fair."