PDA

View Full Version : Craig T. Nelson Interview On Beck, 29MAY09




Objectivist
05-29-2009, 02:28 AM
For those that missed it here it is and I'm done suffering too.
YouTube - Glenn Beck Interviews Craig T. Nelson About Government Responsibilty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NvuRGTS3H8)

Agent CSL
05-29-2009, 05:07 AM
I honour his stance but I disagree with what he said about education and teachers. The teachers have been able to bankrupt every state they unionize under. Not to mention teachers have become increasingly used as tools of propaganda and pushing a federal agenda. Sure, teachers are valuable, but we barely have any REAL TEACHERS left... They're propaganda shills.

angelatc
05-29-2009, 05:38 AM
Glenn Beck is rewriting Thomas Paine. Sigh.

Oh well, if it gets people to read "Common Sense," then I suppose it's a good thing.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 05:56 AM
I honour his stance but I disagree with what he said about education and teachers. The teachers have been able to bankrupt every state they unionize under. Not to mention teachers have become increasingly used as tools of propaganda and pushing a federal agenda. Sure, teachers are valuable, but we barely have any REAL TEACHERS left... They're propaganda shills.

Well I am a teacher, and I completely agree with what he said... with one condition. Teachers are a big of a paradox. They are easily the most valuable asset that we have as a society, but when you start paying them more, then you get a lot of people that have no business being in education. Teachers absolutely deserve to be paid more, but I think they should be paid less... and that includes myself. If you pay teachers next to nothing, it isn't that you lose the highly qualified or highly skilled teachers, but you lose the people that could make more money doing something else. Those that stay are those like myself that can't imagine doing anything else 5 days a week for most of the year. Pay teachers less and you get only those who are truly motivated, truly involved, and truly love teaching. It's the same reason that even as a teacher I refuse to join any teacher's unions because they never represent my interests nor the interests of the nation as a whole.

If I had my way, school would be optional, teachers would get paid based on enrollment fees (it can be government subsidized through property tax, I don't really care as far as that goes), and there would be absolutely no testing data for the state. If a parent didn't feel they were getting their money's worth, they could take their money elsewhere.

ghengis86
05-29-2009, 06:13 AM
Well I am a teacher, and I completely agree with what he said... with one condition. Teachers are a big of a paradox. They are easily the most valuable asset that we have as a society, but when you start paying them more, then you get a lot of people that have no business being in education. Teachers absolutely deserve to be paid more, but I think they should be paid less... and that includes myself. If you pay teachers next to nothing, it isn't that you lose the highly qualified or highly skilled teachers, but you lose the people that could make more money doing something else. Those that stay are those like myself that can't imagine doing anything else 5 days a week for most of the year. Pay teachers less and you get only those who are truly motivated, truly involved, and truly love teaching. It's the same reason that even as a teacher I refuse to join any teacher's unions because they never represent my interests nor the interests of the nation as a whole.

If I had my way, school would be optional, teachers would get paid based on enrollment fees (it can be government subsidized through property tax, I don't really care as far as that goes), and there would be absolutely no testing data for the state. If a parent didn't feel they were getting their money's worth, they could take their money elsewhere.

i disagree with you. making money is not bad if you're a good teacher. in fact, higher wages would improve the quality of education. the problem with your line of thinking is that in today's system, teachers that are in it merely for the money are protected by a state enforced monopoly. were everyone free to choose their education, only the best teachers would survive (and likely be paid more, not less). If there was a horrible teacher that was in it only for the money and was demanding a high salary to boot, people could choose not to send their children to that class/school. The teacher would have to lower their price for their services, increase the quality of their teaching to justify a higher salary or get out of the teaching business.

If i'm in control of my children's education, I can get rid of bad teachers and encourage good teachers; right now, i'm forced to take whatever the state gives me.

ETA: Your last two sentences are good though, save for the property tax subsidizing (you should care); tax is theft. teachers should be paid by the school and the school should be funded by tuitition from parents. all voluntary, all good

angelatc
05-29-2009, 06:45 AM
i disagree with you. making money is not bad if you're a good teacher. in fact, higher wages would improve the quality of education.

Where has that been proven to work?

jsu718
05-29-2009, 06:50 AM
ETA: Your last two sentences are good though, save for the property tax subsidizing (you should care); tax is theft. teachers should be paid by the school and the school should be funded by tuitition from parents. all voluntary, all good

Yeah, I know that all taxes are evil... at least property taxes are set on the local level (at least here in TX... where a state property tax is forbidden by our constitution) and they can be voted upon by the city/district govt. Honestly though it's the one tax I don't complain about.

ghengis86
05-29-2009, 07:01 AM
Where has that been proven to work?

With regard to education, no where and never. But it's because there's a government monopoly on education, not b/c it doesn't work. Take a look at the computer industry; free markets have produced increasingly powerful and useful computers at a decreasing price. And Apple can charge more for their computers than Dell b/c they build a superior product. Even better, there's open source computers/OS's that are free (think homeschooling)! Education as a market is no different.


Yeah, I know that all taxes are evil... at least property taxes are set on the local level (at least here in TX... where a state property tax is forbidden by our constitution) and they can be voted upon by the city/district govt. Honestly though it's the one tax I don't complain about.

I can see your point. I probably have the least oposition to local taxes, though I still don't want them. If I could opt in or out of services, i.e. if they were voluntary, i would like them much better. But like you said, local taxes can be somewhat controlled by the localities residents, which is better than some asshat in washington.

Epic
05-29-2009, 08:34 AM
You can spend 30k/kid per year in education and it wouldn't make a difference when they are in a concentration camp monopoly all day, without even constitutionally-protected rights according to the supreme court.

Agent CSL
05-29-2009, 12:00 PM
I've had the opportunity to be in good communications with several good teachers, and several bad ones. My favorite teacher in elementary school was booted out because he was having sex with a parent, and it became a big row. Well, before this big "scandal" I remember him being the best teacher I'd ever had. He allowed us to go outside to work, he organized an art's fair, he taught us world history, and a whole host of other things he said "the district didn't approve of." Correct, the district didn't approve of him teaching us world history as it wasn't approved curriculum for 6th grade.

I wish I could find him now and thank him. Last I heard he was a taxi driver in Eastern WA.

HOLLYWOOD
05-29-2009, 02:01 PM
Yeah the whole Department of Education, NAE, teacher unions, federal and state politicians, et al have totally screwed up education in general.

and the Socialist lunatics in charge of the funds figure throwing more money at the problems will fix it all. Continuing the Blindfolded, throwing darts in all directions, means you are going to win, though Obama and his minions save a majority of the stolen $800 Billion for the last 2 years of his term, aka, re-election funds.

Craig T Nelson is Dead On Correct, It's Taxation without representation and every single American should withhold any tax(Gov. theft) money to the corrupt cronies in government at all levels!


You can spend 30k/kid per year in education and it wouldn't make a difference when they are in a concentration camp monopoly all day, without even constitutionally-protected rights according to the supreme court.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 05:39 PM
I honour his stance but I disagree with what he said about education and teachers. The teachers have been able to bankrupt every state they unionize under. Not to mention teachers have become increasingly used as tools of propaganda and pushing a federal agenda. Sure, teachers are valuable, but we barely have any REAL TEACHERS left... They're propaganda shills.

Reality is that Teachers that actually teach in a classroom are not the majority of the public education department. The Administrators and related support services cost more money than the actual Teachers who teach. What we have is the pimping of educators. I could cut the budget in half for education, pay teachers who teach more and provide an improved level of education.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 05:47 PM
Where has that been proven to work?

Private sector schools.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 05:48 PM
Reality is that Teachers that actually teach in a classroom are not the majority of the public education department. The Administrators and related support services cost more money than the actual Teachers who teach. What we have is the pimping of educators. I could cut the budget in half for education, pay teachers who teach more and provide an improved level of education.

From my experience I can echo this. As a teacher I had three people that I reported directly to... much like an Office Space situation. Teaching math I had a math facilitator, an assistant principal (actually two, which one depended on what the nature of the issue was), and a principal. Some of these things included directly reporting and others went through the hierarchy. The principals, the highest position at a school, reported to not only a school board, but also an administrator over secondary schools, administrators over specific subject areas for the district, an assistant superintendent, a superintendent, the state for certain budgetary concerns, and parents. In essence as a teacher there were at least 5 layers above each of us, and sometimes as many as 10... all of which made more money than any teacher regardless of experience.


Private sector schools.
Just curious... which private schools did you study data for?

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 05:50 PM
From my experience I can echo this. As a teacher I had three people that I reported directly to... much like an Office Space situation. Teaching math I had a math facilitator, an assistant principal (actually two, which one depended on what the nature of the issue was), and a principal. Some of these things included directly reporting and others went through the hierarchy. The principals, the highest position at a school, reported to not only a school board, but also an administrator over secondary schools, administrators over specific subject areas for the district, an assistant superintendent, a superintendent, the state for certain budgetary concerns, and parents. In essence as a teacher there were at least 5 layers above each of us, and sometimes as many as 10... all of which made more money than any teacher regardless of experience.


Just curious... which private schools did you study data for?

You make my point beautifully.:)

In my area there are a number of private schools that graduate students that go on to some of the best universities in the nation.
John Stossel has also done a few reports on the subject, and in his last book he showed the improvement with students that attended Sylvan Learning Center over public schools. When you have to pay for your kids education directly you also pay attention to the achievements of your kids.
Milton Friedman known for being a statistician/economist has also done the numbers on government college compared to private ones. Private schools come out ahead.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 05:59 PM
Dated but relevant.
YouTube - Milton Friedman: Education (Part One) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU)
YouTube - Milton Friedman: Education (Part Two) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMgz2W3taw8&feature=related)

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 06:02 PM
YouTube "John Stossel education" for a list of his work.

YouTube - The Case for School Vouchers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBNvnTUrfM)

Eric21ND
05-29-2009, 06:14 PM
Good teachers are underpaid, bad teachers are overpaid.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 06:14 PM
You make my point beautifully.:)

In my area there are a number of private schools that graduate students that go on to some of the best universities in the nation.
John Stossel has also done a few reports on the subject, and in his last book he showed the improvement with students that attended Sylvan Learning Center over public schools. When you have to pay for your kids education directly you also pay attention to the achievements of your kids.
Milton Friedman known for being a statistician/economist has also done the numbers on government college compared to private ones. Private schools come out ahead.

Yeah, I have seen all of Stossel's work. Been a fan for many many years... also quite a bit of Friedman. I do have one problem with your assertion though, which may or may not have come from what they said... you are making the mistake of confusing causation with correlation.

Example: Sylvan Learning Center
It is not a replacement for public schools. Sylvan Learning Center is more of a supplement. Now there IS definitely a proven relationship between a parent's concern about their child's education and the success of the child in education, but I think that you have the causation backwards in this case. Because the parent cares enough to pay for supplemental education, they will do better. The same is true of parents who help their kids with their homework and don't spend a dime. The more time you spend learning the more you learn as well, which doesn't prove at all that somewhere like Sylvan is better than a public school. I don't necessarily agree with you that paying for education in itself makes a parent more attentive... in fact in my experience most parents that can easily afford to send their children to private schools are some of the least attentive parents of all. Yes, some do so without having disposable income to do so out of full concern for their education.

As for private school grads going on to "some of the best", that is generally more a result of gaining connections rather than gaining a far superior education. The same with private universities versus public.

I still mostly agree with you though.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 06:18 PM
Yeah, I have seen all of Stossel's work. Been a fan for many many years... also quite a bit of Friedman. I do have one problem with your assertion though, which may or may not have come from what they said... you are making the mistake of confusing causation with correlation.

Example: Sylvan Learning Center
It is not a replacement for public schools. Sylvan Learning Center is more of a supplement. Now there IS definitely a proven relationship between a parent's concern about their child's education and the success of the child in education, but I think that you have the causation backwards in this case. Because the parent cares enough to pay for supplemental education, they will do better. The same is true of parents who help their kids with their homework and don't spend a dime. The more time you spend learning the more you learn as well, which doesn't prove at all that somewhere like Sylvan is better than a public school. I don't necessarily agree with you that paying for education in itself makes a parent more attentive... in fact in my experience most parents that can easily afford to send their children to private schools are some of the least attentive parents of all. Yes, some do so without having disposable income to do so out of full concern for their education.

As for private school grads going on to "some of the best", that is generally more a result of gaining connections rather than gaining a far superior education. The same with private universities versus public.

I still mostly agree with you though.

I was just using Sylvan as an example. It would have to be expanded to deliver a complete education. They still get better results than any public school class for special needs children.
And I could still deliver a superior education for less.

Todays four year state college degree is equivalent to a 1950 high school diploma.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 06:20 PM
Good teachers are underpaid, bad teachers are overpaid.

And Administrators should be fired.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 06:32 PM
I was just using Sylvan as an example. It would have to be expanded to deliver a complete education. They still get better results than any public school class for special needs children.
And I could still deliver a superior education for less.

Todays four year state college degree is equivalent to a 1950 high school diploma.

I know, and other than my comment about it being a supplement, the same still holds true for private education in general.

And I don't quite agree with your final point... I think you would be more accurate in saying that today's four year graduate is equivalent to a 1950 high school graduate. From the research I have seen most of the variables in both have to do with intelligence/performance in a standard curve. Somewhere around 50% of students in 1950 graduated high school and 10% college. Today it is more like 90% for high school and 30% for college. I'd say the top 50% of students in 1950 were pretty much similar to the top 50% of students today.


And Administrators should be fired.
One can dream... the way things are set up with fixed state curriculum and high stakes testing this could actually work fine.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 06:41 PM
I know, and other than my comment about it being a supplement, the same still holds true for private education in general.

And I don't quite agree with your final point... I think you would be more accurate in saying that today's four year graduate is equivalent to a 1950 high school graduate. From the research I have seen most of the variables in both have to do with intelligence/performance in a standard curve. Somewhere around 50% of students in 1950 graduated high school and 10% college. Today it is more like 90% for high school and 30% for college. I'd say the top 50% of students in 1950 were pretty much similar to the top 50% of students today.


One can dream... the way things are set up with fixed state curriculum and high stakes testing this could actually work fine.

Graduation rates are irrelevant when it's the level of education that should be the constant. Can someone explain why math tests are multiple choice?

kahless
05-29-2009, 06:50 PM
I honour his stance but I disagree with what he said about education and teachers. The teachers have been able to bankrupt every state they unionize under. Not to mention teachers have become increasingly used as tools of propaganda and pushing a federal agenda. Sure, teachers are valuable, but we barely have any REAL TEACHERS left... They're propaganda shills.

+1

He seems like a good guy and other than his comment on education it was a good interview otherwise. It was sad to see the propaganda machine is already working against Craig. Olberman ripped him a new one for the Beck interview.

I try not to put him on but check to see what the other side has to say but he is such a hate monger it just pisses me off.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 06:52 PM
Graduation rates are irrelevant when it's the level of education that should be the constant. Can someone explain why math tests are multiple choice?

Intelligence has been pretty much constant over time. A person at the 90th percentile in 1950 is still pretty much as intelligent as someone at the 90th percentile today (within a few points). These people would also gain almost the same amount of learning given similar access to information. The rates are absolutely relevant because of this.

Being a math teacher I can also explain the multiple choice thing. Standardized testing. Simple answer. I was forced to present most of my instruction in a format matching this because that's what my administration said would be most effective in teaching them to perform best on the test of the exact same format.

Secondary to this... when grading this multiple choice crap, I ignored the answer that was bubbled and graded the work. My students know this.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 06:59 PM
Intelligence has been pretty much constant over time. A person at the 90th percentile in 1950 is still pretty much as intelligent as someone at the 90th percentile today (within a few points). These people would also gain almost the same amount of learning given similar access to information. The rates are absolutely relevant because of this.

Being a math teacher I can also explain the multiple choice thing. Standardized testing. Simple answer. I was forced to present most of my instruction in a format matching this because that's what my administration said would be most effective in teaching them to perform best on the test of the exact same format.

Secondary to this... when grading this multiple choice crap, I ignored the answer that was bubbled and graded the work. My students know this.

Multiple choice offers the opportunity for guessing no matter what or how you personally grade. It is illogical to offer the choice or picking when the answer is a constant. 2+2 will always equal 4.

Then there is a demographic shift that has occurred since 1950.

jsu718
05-29-2009, 07:10 PM
Multiple choice offers the opportunity for guessing no matter what or how you personally grade. It is illogical to offer the choice or picking when the answer is a constant. 2+2 will always equal 4.

Then there is a demographic shift that has occurred since 1950.

Guessing doesn't lead to passing. It isn't a logical strategy. In fact, multiple choice often highlights laziness because those that see those answers right in front of them that are highly lazy will just pick one rather than fully solving a difficult problem.

Demographics have nothing to do with intelligence when tested properly.

qh4dotcom
05-29-2009, 07:23 PM
There's a legal way for Craig T Nelson to not pay his taxes or pay less taxes....by earning a poor man's salary...Government punishes success and rewards laziness. If he doesn't want to pay taxes he should be living off his savings or not earning more money than what he needs to live with comfortably.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 07:28 PM
Guessing doesn't lead to passing. It isn't a logical strategy. In fact, multiple choice often highlights laziness because those that see those answers right in front of them that are highly lazy will just pick one rather than fully solving a difficult problem.

Demographics have nothing to do with intelligence when tested properly.

On demographics you'd have to explain why Asians and "Whites" score higher than Hispanics and Blacks, it's been shown time and again to be the case in California.
http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 07:30 PM
There's a legal way for Craig T Nelson to not pay his taxes or pay less taxes....by earning a poor man's salary...Government punishes success and rewards laziness. If he doesn't want to pay taxes he should be living off his savings or not earning more money than what he needs to live with comfortably.

Well if that isn't the slave mentality..... I know you were just giving an example.:D

jsu718
05-29-2009, 07:34 PM
On demographics you'd have to explain why Asians and "Whites" score higher than Hispanics and Blacks, it's been shown time and again to be the case in California.

Depends how you define "score higher". As far as standardized tests the difference is usually based on other variables like socioeconomic status. Once you control for that there isn't really a difference. With intelligence there is even less difference, especially with a properly administered IQ test... as in one that isn't online or multiple choice.

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 07:41 PM
Depends how you define "score higher". As far as standardized tests the difference is usually based on other variables like socioeconomic status. Once you control for that there isn't really a difference. With intelligence there is even less difference, especially with a properly administered IQ test... as in one that isn't online or multiple choice.

We'll have to disagree on that point. I'll judge by historic content.

See ya!:cool:

Old Ducker
05-29-2009, 07:58 PM
Well I am a teacher, and I completely agree with what he said... with one condition. Teachers are a big of a paradox. They are easily the most valuable asset that we have as a society, but when you start paying them more, then you get a lot of people that have no business being in education. Teachers absolutely deserve to be paid more, but I think they should be paid less... and that includes myself. If you pay teachers next to nothing, it isn't that you lose the highly qualified or highly skilled teachers, but you lose the people that could make more money doing something else. Those that stay are those like myself that can't imagine doing anything else 5 days a week for most of the year. Pay teachers less and you get only those who are truly motivated, truly involved, and truly love teaching. It's the same reason that even as a teacher I refuse to join any teacher's unions because they never represent my interests nor the interests of the nation as a whole.

If I had my way, school would be optional, teachers would get paid based on enrollment fees (it can be government subsidized through property tax, I don't really care as far as that goes), and there would be absolutely no testing data for the state. If a parent didn't feel they were getting their money's worth, they could take their money elsewhere.

A start in my mind would be to give teachers sole control over curriculum, and real power to principals. If the principle disagrees with the curriculum, fire the teacher. If the board disagrees with the principal, fire him. If the PTA disagrees with the board, get new people on it. As long as we're going to have government schools, they should still be subject only to local control.

WTF does a principal even do these days beside attending meetings?

Objectivist
05-30-2009, 02:09 AM
A start in my mind would be to give teachers sole control over curriculum, and real power to principals. If the principle disagrees with the curriculum, fire the teacher. If the board disagrees with the principal, fire him. If the PTA disagrees with the board, get new people on it. As long as we're going to have government schools, they should still be subject only to local control.

WTF does a principal even do these days beside attending meetings?

And do you really need a Principal at each school? Nope

jsu718
05-30-2009, 09:32 AM
And do you really need a Principal at each school? Nope

If there was a system in place to monitor teachers other than manually (principals don't even do observations most times) then they wouldn't be necessary for most things... principals still do have quite a few responsibilities... I wouldn't necessarily say they aren't replaceable though. They have budgetary concerns, disciplinary, hiring/firing of teachers, etc. It might work in a small school district where you have school board members or the superintendent take over some of those responsibilities, but in a large district like the one I am in, unless you turn over a whole lot of those responsibilities to the teachers that they really aren't qualified to deal with, you aren't going to get a desirable outcome.