Member of Parliament Salaries $163,700
Canadians pay more than $25 for every dollar politicians contribute to MP pensionsHer check out what our politicians get paid. Funny stuff I don't ever remember us agreeing to any of this?
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/houseofcommons/a/salaries-canadian-members-parliament.htm
Quoting this since this post was in the mod queue and is now a few pages back.
at the end of the day the argument is really about what's best for the education system . . .
I would add one bit to your comment . .. . "within the financial means of the Province of BC and taxpayers".
It may be 'best' to give each kid personal 1 on 1 instruction, but, we can't afford that.
Anyone know if private schools attract 'better' or 'worse' teachers then ? (however you would define 'better' or 'worse')
Teacher friends have told me that one of the biggest differences between teaching at public vs. private is the work load. The inside joke being that once a teacher goes private, they can ever go back to public because the work load would be more than they would like. So, even if salaries are the same, private is arguably the better deal.
If that's true, then you might find that private schools attract lazy teachers, but obviously the hiring practices of the school will ultimately determine whether their teachers are 'better' or 'worse'.
I'm not against setting standards for teachers, but if there is a objective, unambiguous way to judge a teacher's performance and get rid of bad teachers, I'm all ears. So far I haven't. Otherwise it just becomes a shell game.
This is always what it boils down to every time the teachers go on strike. Most people support the idea of better classrooms with smaller classes, better support, and more funds for books, etc (although the cons would balk once it came time to open the wallet), but when it comes to wages the lines get drawn and it becomes about performance and undeserving teachers.
Fact is every profession has it's useless idiots getting paid as much as someone doing twice the work and reviewing teachers (and probably many other professions with large numbers) is going to be subjective at best.
I know I keep going back to this but the government needs to do something about the training before any of this gets sorted out to make it a respected profession again like Finland has done. Without that, teachers will be looked at as glorified baby sitters by enough of the public for the government to play hardball, under fund education and paint teachers as greedy.
I honestly have no idea how the law profession works in Canada, so I might be off base. The goal at a big US firm for any associate, is to find a way to bill the client for every hour possible. Some firms are obviously more aggressive than others. Are the associates taking that money home for the extra hours they work - no. The firm is, but as a partner, the payoff is enormous. The reward structure is so colossally different, it's really not a good comparison. We should really keep the comparisons to other public positions that require the same type of credentials.
Should they be expected to have the same capabilities? Are there certain skills that make a teacher exceptional for every person that walks into the classroom? My kid has done pretty well with a teacher that is extremely structured. I'm sure 50% of the parents don't appreciate this as much as I do.
Earlier Cam posed the question as to why firefighters and police are not put under the same scrutiny as teachers. I haven't heard any good responses. Does anyone here think it might be because teaching is a female dominated occupation? IMO, it's clear the union makes this group of underpaid individuals stronger - end of story.
I don't think there is a good response. It is valid to have an opinion one way or the other. The point I was trying to make with lawyers is that the law students know exactly what the work will be like when they enter the profession. They know that they will be working long hours and what the potential rewards will be. Many can't cut it at a firm and do something else. There are three people here at this little insurance adjusting firm where I work with law degrees but they all chose to work less hard to raise families or for other reasons. I report to lawyers that work at insurance companies and it is a similar story. I hear their argument that they have to work long hours like they did not know what the job was. If what they are saying is simply people don't know the hours we put in and we want that recognized with a better wage, then yeah, that is a reasonable argument.
Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.
What constitutes 'better'? Who gets to make the decision? That's a pretty big ball of wax considering that every student is an individual, with specific needs. No 'one size fits all' approach will work.
A geologic analysis is either done accurately or not, education is not the same.
Geological analysis is exactly the same. Each situation is different, and complex in its own way. A professional has to call on his or her accumulated experience to determine the appropriate solution.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.
I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.
The money has to come from somewhere. Getting it from higher taxes won't be popular, so I'd bet the government would get it by reducing expenditures in other areas. In other words, less services somewhere else, which will lead to another public outcry.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
Just a couple of thoughts.
- Like most jobs where one is paid by the hour for their work there is I believe it is called cost of living increases to one's wage. Is the money increase being argued a cost of living increase or something else.
The BCTF proposal is for both. So much to "catch up" with the National average, and then half of the CPI index increase each year.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.
I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.
I don't think there is a good response. It is valid to have an opinion one way or the other.
to this i'd ask you four questions:
1. do you think the education system overall is doing a good job and that all kids are getting an equally beneficial level of education regardless of location and socioeconomic status?
2. do you think our education system could be doing a better job than it currently is?
3. do you think our education should be doing a better job than it currently is?
4, do you think the benefits to society as a whole of providing a better education system outweighs the negatives that may be necessary to implement such a system?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
to this i'd ask you four questions:
1. do you think the education system overall is doing a good job and that all kids are getting an equally beneficial level of education regardless of location and socioeconomic status?
2. do you think our education system could be doing a better job than it currently is?
3. do you think our education should be doing a better job than it currently is?
4, do you think the benefits to society as a whole of providing a better education system outweighs the negatives that may be necessary to implement such a system?
1. I'll give them a C. With the exception of Heritage Woods most of the schools I had contact with were designed to have a good mix of low and high income households. The opportunity to learn was there and there were even good extras like taking CAD classes and AP courses.
2. Yes
3. I'd like to think so
4. Absolutely
5. I don't think paying teachers more will help any of the above.
and BTW if you send your kid to private school the gov gives that school the 6K that would go to funding the public system
Can anyone give me a convincing reason why this is a good idea?
I'd give as much credence to a school ranking done by the Fraser Institute as one done by Counterpunch.
Can anyone give me a convincing reason why this is a good idea?
well let's see. little johnny at private school is given only 50% of the per student funding that the public school gets. so not only does the public system have to educate one less student, the govt gets to save some money as little johnny's parents pick up the rest of the tab.
private schools are a net benefit to the public school system and the taxpayer.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
5. I don't think paying teachers more will help any of the above.
that's fair and tbh it's not something i'm overly concerned with even though i feel that in some circumstances teachers should be making more money. your other answers though are much more indicative of where the battle lies.
again i've spoken with quite a few teachers recently and even though they'd all like a wage increase, they'd be happy with getting classroom improvements for wage concessions like they have done in the past.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Can anyone give me a convincing reason why this is a good idea?
Parents of private school students pay taxes, it is fair that they receive something for their money.
$6,000 per private student is half of the $12,000 per public school student. Basically, private school kids subsidize public school student. They take less out of the system.
Forum jump:
