Because of socialism, fewer entitlements, and poverty,- people in other
countries feel greater urgency for education then people here. They
don't have the safety net, therefore education is important for survival..
Oh Mitt this election cannot get over fast enough. Outside of your old ward and
the state of Utah will you have any credibilty left?
RedShirt,The first thing I am unable to verify your numbers for
South Korea high schools, but for the sake of argument lets say you are right.
The big difference in Korea is that students are tested at age 15 and then moved
either into academic tracks or vocational tracks. Those attending academic
track schools will then be tested again before they are allowed to enter into
college. In other words it is very competitive. You can put 100 students in a
classroom if they are motivated and their parents are motivated and you can
teach them. Put 10 kids who aren't motivated and who have no parental
support in class and that class will be much more difficult to teach than the
one with 100 motivated students.And by the way South Korean parents
and students have almost no choice in terms of where their students will be
placed. So if the South Korea model is what we want great lets adopt it, but
that does away with charter schools, and vouchers.
To "eagle" prove it. Once the current average is 40 to 50, there is no
justification for giving teachers more. Right now the average class size is
22.2 students in each highschool class. If class size was such a key ingredient
in success, then why is it that in Korea they have 40 to 50 students in a class
and are able to get better outcomes?
Redshirt: Hundreds, perhaps thousands of secondary Utah teachers
already have 40-50 kids in their classrooms. They just aren't getting the
better pay and are losing benefits on top of that.
LDS Lib,I don't recall seeing anywhere in the article where Romney
says the feds should pay for the increase. nice twist and obfuscation on your
part.You say someone thinks voters are stupid? BO's level of
support of proof that they are
Please explain HOW "President" Romney at the Federal Level, is
going to increase Salaries and such for Teachers....When all that is
decided and paid for by the STATES?He should know that as a former
Governor.Me thinks, He thinks Voters are stupid and will believe
anything he says...
There you go again,Nice twist and obfuscation!A common truism stated
by conservative is the unions care only about the teachers and not education,
which is quite different from what you said.paying teachers is NOT
the responsibility of the federal government - it belongs with the states. (10th
amnedment to the constitution) But since when did the constitution matter to
To "LDS Liberal" the socialism has nothing to do with the performance of
the schools in those countries. It is all due to culture. Singapore and Korea
have cultures that demand the kids do well. In Finland, only the college bound
kids are in school past age 16.If we are going to copy those
countries, and pay teacher more, lets do it. We just have to get the teachers
on board with having 40 to 50 kids in their Highschool classes. Wound't it
be easier to pay teachers more if there were more students per teacher?If teachers want to raise the starting wages, they need to limit the supply of
teachers. If becoming a teacher was like becoming an MD, that would drive the
supply of teachers down, and force the starting salaries up.
Romney is right. Higher starting salaries would help. Romney is also right.
The Federal Government has nothing to do with the first point. The Federal
Government's role in public education is through the IDEA not the basic
funding. Basic education funding (including teacher's salaries) come from
the states. It is possible to do both things he said.
Another "etch-a-sketch" moment for Romney. What would he really say if
he were to be elected it.
Only took 7 comments before teachers unions were mentioned as the problem of
education, that could be a record for an article mentioning public education.
The one consistent about thing about Mr. Romney he will say anything at anytime
to try to get a vote even if it completely contradicts what he said 10 minutes
So he knows how to fix it (public schools and higher pay for teachers) and will
do the exact opposite (cut funding for education and privatize it with charter
schools that have been proven not to work)Yahhh that sounds like
Romney. (Today). When he gets flack for that idiocy, I am sure he will
Let's just stay with Obama. No one can match his greatness.After his November victory, let's all get together and pay for his
vacations, and golf games.
@andywhy the nay sayers? maybe because the Romney alternatives of vouchers
and charter schools have already proven a failure
Today, romney wants higher starting salaries for teachers.Yesterday,
romney told voters teachers only care about unions.Tomorrow,
What's with the naysayers. The current system obviously doesn't work.
Are kids are falling farther behind the rest of the world and some (mostly
current, union teachers, I presume) don't want to look at meaningful
reform. It's no wonder we are falling behind.
Mitt, I hope you are elected President, but you're nothing more than a
The report identifies Finland, Singapore and South Korea as countries with
top-performing education systems. ========= The report
should also make note Finland, Singapore and South Korea are all Socialist
countries as well.Along with Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Japan.One truism with Capitalism -- you get what you pay for.
Mitt honestly believes all he has to do is move into the White House and his
mere presence will magically fix everything, including increasing teachers'
salaries.Is this guy for real?
'Mitt Romney wants higher starting salaries for teachers'Good! Mr. Future President, go read the Constitution (Amendment #10) and then
get out of our way.
Romney specifically cited increasing starting salaries as a way to improve U.S.
school systems, but he said if he were elected president, he would not increase
federal education spending or attempt to address teacher salaries or recruitment
at the federal level. Instead, his further comments focused on voucher programs
and charter schools, despite evidence charter schools fail to outperform public
schools on national tests.So what he really meant was after he
dismantles the public education system, and hands it over to for-profit schools,
THEY will pay the teachers more.Unlikely.What is with
"Vouchers" and the republicans?
How about higher pay for those who are retired?Not fair! My
starting salary as a teacher was $11,000.