102 things NOT to do if you hate taxes.

[Lex Concord]

Lots of teachers ARE overpaid, and it doesn't matter if they make 100k or 10K.

The way you know you're over paid is if there are people with your qualifications who will do your job for less money. You're underpaid if there's no one who will do your job for the money you make.

Most private school teachers make less than most public school teachers, so there you go.

The teaching profession artificially restricts competition by forcing otherwise qualified people to go through useless education certification programs. If a school ran like a business you'd pay less for labor and get better results.

So yeah, they're mostly overpaid.

You with the ECON 101 bit again (sorry, outta rep)

 

[yotewacker]

My second house I rented out previously (had to kick out due to non payment, took months). I just decided it wasn't worth it to rent and risk another dead beat, or worse, and have to suffer the tax penalty. The extra 1% is huge and tips the risk/benefit into the risk category.

I don't do rentals for a living, my other house I've been trying to sell for 2.5 years I'm f'ed over with again thanks to taxes and foreclosures. I'm still going to be taxed as if I'm a business... then someone will wonder why people are tempted (and do) walk away from their homes.

Between taxes and banks destroying the value of neighborhoods with firesale foreclosures, is it any wonder why more people don't walk away?

With the escrow for taxes, my mortgage on that other house DOUBLED because of the increase in taxes. So much for the American dream

I completely understand what your going through. I have several rental properties and none make a dollar. And having the taxes double did not help. I cannot raise the rent because most are struggling now. So I'm taking the loss on all of them.That's why I'm done buying until our government decides to support the little guy.
I have 25 employees altogether and could actually use a few more. But I will not hire a new employee to just lay him off in a few months. So once again, when our government gets it's S*** together, I will hire then. But not until then.
Because if I hire them, then lay them off. My unemployment tax goes thru the roof and I then pay part of there wages without them working for me.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

False. Lack of profit motive (most "free" religious private schools are only so for those who tithe...a profit by any other name) serves to distort decision making at every level.

Until recently, the taxpayer's pockets (yes, a generalization to which there are exceptions) were a bottomless pit that many districts were all to happy to mine time and time again. Doubt it? Go look at the football stadiums at some of the local high schools...very educational.

Have you ever seen one like you see at Carmel, Ben Davis, etc. at a private high school? Brebuf Jesuit is one of the private schools in the Indy area that costs more per student than the public schools, yet they don't have a massive sports complex...why? They actually have to EARN their money...it doesn't flow in, confiscated at gunpoint, as property taxes do.

And yet thousands of businesses fail each and every year to due every cause imaginable. Almost 1/3 fail in the first year, while 50% fail within the first 5 years. Sounds like a great success rate there.

My point stands. JUST because it is a business does not mean it is run better.

 

[Lex Concord]

And yet thousands of businesses fail each and every year to due every cause imaginable. Almost 1/3 fail in the first year, while 50% fail within the first 5 years. Sounds like a great success rate there.

My point stands. JUST because it is a business does not mean it is run better.

You need a new yardstick. Business failure as an indication of whether a business is run well *may* be pertinent, but using that as an indication that public entities, for which a failure similar to that of a business is IMPOSSIBLE.

They don't shut down when they go bankrupt, they whine for more money to **** into the gutters.

While I will cede your point that JUST because it is a business doesn't mean it is run better, the fact that market forces are involved make it INCREDIBLY more likely because financial considerations are, well, actually considered.

Public entities rarely do this, and they do not have sufficient input with which to make sound financial judgements aside from "we spend more/less on X this year/decade as opposed to last".

The odds are HEAVILY in favor of the likelihood that a private entity will be run far better (hell, even in bankruptcy the bleeding usually stops not far below $0...what is the case with public entities? Just open a new vein in the host...) than their public counterparts.

 

[blamecharles]

Why don't we let the airline industry run the schools? How about the automotive industry? Banking? How many business fail each year?

Better question for you how many of those were overtaxed or over regulated?

 

[steveh_131]

And yet thousands of businesses fail each and every year to due every cause imaginable. Almost 1/3 fail in the first year, while 50% fail within the first 5 years. Sounds like a great success rate there.

My point stands. JUST because it is a business does not mean it is run better.

A business failing is PROOF that running things like a business works. This is the free market at work. Provide a service or product that people are not satisfied with and you disappear while someone else takes your place and does a better job.

Instead we continue to hurl money into the bottomless pit of government with no accountability or options.

Being a business has nothing to do with better results. Why don't we let the airline industry run the schools? How about the automotive industry? Banking? How many business fail each year?

These are particularly terrible examples of the free market. Completely tainted by government intervention.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

You need a new yardstick. Business failure as an indication of whether a business is run well *may* be pertinent, but using that as an indication that public entities, for which a failure similar to that of a business is IMPOSSIBLE.

They don't shut down when they go bankrupt, they whine for more money to **** into the gutters.

While I will cede your point that JUST because it is a business doesn't mean it is run better, the fact that market forces are involved make it INCREDIBLY more likely because financial considerations are, well, actually considered.

Public entities rarely do this, and they do not have sufficient input with which to make sound financial judgements aside from "we spend more/less on X this year/decade as opposed to last".

The odds are HEAVILY in favor of the likelihood that a private entity will be run far better (hell, even in bankruptcy the bleeding usually stops not far below $0...what is the case with public entities? Just open a new vein in the host...) than their public counterparts.

My yardstick is just fine. How many businesses have been bailed out by the government? How many businesses have been broken up by the government due to monopolistic practices?

In a business, the only thing that matters is the bottom line, NOT producing a quality product. Do you really want a school system that is based around spending as little as possible on your child, while making as much money from your child as possible?

Better question for you how many of those were overtaxed or over regulated?

Semantics. Everyone who supports a particular industry thinks it is overtaxed and over regulated, and everyone who is against a certain industry thinks it isn't taxed and regulated enough.

A business failing is PROOF that running things like a business works. This is the free market at work. Provide a service or product that people are not satisfied with and you disappear while someone else takes your place and does a better job.

Instead we continue to hurl money into the bottomless pit of government with no accountability or options.

These are particularly terrible examples of the free market. Completely tainted by government intervention.

And yet we don't have a "free market". Taxes and subsidies that target certain industries and tariffs that protect others show this, it has been that way since the founding of this country. How many times have large monopolies risen in this country, which is the opposite of a free market.

There are plenty of options, but most of those options are ones people don't like. They aren't simple or easy.

Every business is tainted by the government. Every business gets some type of tax credit or deduction, unless it is illegal. It doesn't matter if these examples are "terrible" or not, they represent the business world. Just as every business isn't about to fail, public school are the same way.

Sure there are problems and personally i don't think money will fix them, but as a whole, they are not any better or worse run than businesses.

 

[Lex Concord]

My yardstick is just fine. How many businesses have been bailed out by the government? How many businesses have been broken up by the government due to monopolistic practices?

In a business, the only thing that matters is the bottom line, NOT producing a quality product. Do you really want a school system that is based around spending as little as possible on your child, while making as much money from your child as possible?

First, if you think that the quality of product has no impact on the bottom line or considerations related thereto, you don't understand business. Not to say that bottom line considerations don't sometimes negatively impact product quality, especially in publicly traded companies, but to think they are unrelated is asinine. Crap product guarantees failure every time, eventually. That is, unless there is a backstop.

Second, school systems don't spend any money on my children, but take it out of their college funds. I prefer no public school system but, since I am forced to help pay for one, would prefer one that considers the most effective use of funds toward education (refer again to athletic facilities).

If they had market forces (i.e. people could CHOOSE not to pay them if they weren't effective educators or people could CHOOSE not to send their kids there - and still keep the money for other uses) then they could fail as an institution as they fail in producing a quality product.

Finally, the fact that businesses have been bailed out proves nothing but the point that government enjoys getting involved to *save* (backstop) things that ought not be saved, all using the truckloads of money extracted from all of us at gunpoint. Because some or many businesses have been bailed out does not imply that the same is acceptable for schools, or any other publicly-funded entity.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

First, if you think that the quality of product has no impact on the bottom line or considerations related thereto, you don't understand business. Not to say that bottom line considerations don't sometimes negatively impact product quality, especially in publicly traded companies, but to think they are unrelated is asinine. Crap product guarantees failure every time, eventually. That is, unless there is a backstop.

Second, school systems don't spend any money on my children, but take it out of their college funds. I prefer no public school system but, since I am forced to help pay for one, would prefer one that considers the most effective use of funds toward education (refer again to athletic facilities).

If they had market forces (i.e. people could CHOOSE not to pay them if they weren't effective educators or people could CHOOSE not to send their kids there - and still keep the money for other uses) then they could fail as an institution as they fail in producing a quality product.

Finally, the fact that businesses have been bailed out proves nothing but the point that government enjoys getting involved to *save* (backstop) things that ought not be saved, all using the truckloads of money extracted from all of us at gunpoint. Because some or many businesses have been bailed out does not imply that the same is acceptable for schools, or any other publicly-funded entity.

Be careful before assuming what I think. While there are SOME businesses that try to sell a quality product, it is a means to get a better bottom line. Look at car manufactures, some sell cheap cars and some sell expensive cars. All of them make the decision that level of quality they are willing to offer, all based on a cost/benefit formula they follow.

Schools don't spend any money on your children but take it from their college fund? I guess you home school your kids then. Did you go to public school, or your spouse? How about your parents, or anyone else in your family? You must come from a well off family that can afford all that.

Education is more than just reading and math, but then you would know that since almost all private schools offer things like religious training, music lessons, and physical activities. I don't know of any private school that just teaches reading and math. I agree that public schools spend too much money on football programs, but then that is what the majority of the parents want so that just goes to show that they are idiots.

I didn't say that it was acceptable for schools to be bailed out, i just said that businesses, as a whole, are not better managed than schools, as a whole. That fact that you can provide evidence that schools have particular problems and I provide evidence that businesses have particular problems only shows that both systems have pros & cons.


The only way to get rid of public education is to amend the State Constitution since Article 8 requires the state to provide an education free of tuition.

 

[steveh_131]

Every business is tainted by the government. Every business gets some type of tax credit or deduction, unless it is illegal. It doesn't matter if these examples are "terrible" or not, they represent the business world. Just as every business isn't about to fail, public school are the same way.

Sure there are problems and personally i don't think money will fix them, but as a whole, they are not any better or worse run than businesses.

Ok, honest question: Do you consider yourself a socialist? It sounds like you're making the case that a socialist economic system is just as good as a capitalist economic system. Or are you trying to make the case that public schools are an exception to this?

Personally, I think that competition and accountability in the free market leads to better products and services and higher productivity as a whole. I see no reason why schools would be an exception to this.

Also, interesting article: Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries

...its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best. The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector. It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies.

 

[thompal]

So, I have been accused of being cold hearted for not supporting a tax referendum which will increase property tax to help fund our school system.

Anyways, this article was posted for "those people who hate taxes"...

Laughable.


102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes | Addicting Info

Obviously written by a rabid liberal, who, in typical liberal fashion, has barely a passing acquaintance with facts. Do these morons actually think public bathrooms are paid for by tax dollars?

And the whole thing about not using anything that is federally regulated?? Seriously? They use one example of infringement to justify another?

These people make me laugh. They are a product of the education system they advocate.

 

[Lex Concord]

Be careful before assuming what I think.

You mean this?

In a business, the only thing that matters is the bottom line, NOT producing a quality product.

So, to paraphrase, only the bottom line matters, the quality of product doesn't...

While there are SOME businesses that try to sell a quality product, it is a means to get a better bottom line. Look at car manufactures, some sell cheap cars and some sell expensive cars. All of them make the decision that level of quality they are willing to offer, all based on a cost/benefit formula they follow.

however, to paraphrase me, you agree that quality is factored into the bottom line equation.

Schools don't spend any money on your children but take it from their college fund? I guess you home school your kids then. Did you go to public school, or your spouse? How about your parents, or anyone else in your family? You must come from a well off family that can afford all that.

Yes, we home school. Yes, I went to public school, I am not nor have I ever been "well off" (price of eggs in China?).

Education is more than just reading and math, but then you would know that since almost all private schools offer things like religious training, music lessons, and physical activities. I don't know of any private school that just teaches reading and math. I agree that public schools spend too much money on football programs, but then that is what the majority of the parents want so that just goes to show that they are idiots.

I didn't say that it was acceptable for schools to be bailed out, i just said that businesses, as a whole, are not better managed than schools, as a whole. That fact that you can provide evidence that schools have particular problems and I provide evidence that businesses have particular problems only shows that both systems have pros & cons.

You seemed to be implying exactly that.

I was not providing evidence that schools have particular problems, but presenting the case that the basics of the public school model lends toward certain problems AND perpetuating them for an indeterminate time because of the lack of market direction in their operation.

The business model may experience identical problems, due to identical mismanagement, but the problems and mismanagement will be quickly curtailed due to termination of the party/parties responsible for the mismanagement or failure of the business. The bureaucratic setting does not lend itself to such correction.

Look at the Soviet Union. It is not the tyranny that brought it down, but the incessant deficit spending based on central planning that had no benefit of market inputs.

The only way to get rid of public education is to amend the State Constitution since Article 8 requires the state to provide an education free of tuition.

Yep, but for the time being it would be nice if they would try to be efficient...unfortunately, only market forces can guide such efficiencies.

 

[dross]

In a business, the only thing that matters is the bottom line, NOT producing a quality product. Do you really want a school system that is based around spending as little as possible on your child, while making as much money from your child as possible?

In a public school, the only thing that matters is the top line, if you will. In a business, the medium of exchange is money. If I have a business, I have to give you something you want in exchange for your money. You choose to give me your money, or to give it to another business who has something closer to what you want. Since, as you note, I'm only really interested in my bottom line, I'm going to try to give you what you want. As cheaply as possible, of course.

In a public school the dynamics are completely different. As a public entity I don't have to give the customer (the parents of the children) what they want because they don't have a choice about giving me money. The money is taken by force at the point of a gun. If I'm a teacher in the public school, the organization that represents me - the teacher's union - is the most powerful player in the education system. The union doesn't care about the students, they're there to get me some of the spoils taken by force. My powerful organization elects the school board, who decides how the spoils are divided up.

As a public school, I only have to keep the parents just happy enough that they don't revolt and vote in charter schools or vouchers, like they've done in several places around the country.

The business model isn't perfect. It's just been shown over and over to work better than the public model in education.

As to certifications being part of the qualifications - I taught college courses and no certification was required. I can make any hoop to jump through and call it a certification. Unless that certification correlates with better teaching, which it doesn't, it's only an artificial qualification.

In some states, florists have to get certified. Almost none can pass the test. In those states it's illegal to sell a flower arrangement without the certification.

Certifications have long been used to limit the market.

 

[hornadylnl]

There's no bigger proponent of certifications than those holding them.

 

[Hotdoger]

There's no bigger proponent of certifications than those holding them.

Or those that offer the "education" to achieve the "certification".

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Ok, honest question: Do you consider yourself a socialist? It sounds like you're making the case that a socialist economic system is just as good as a capitalist economic system. Or are you trying to make the case that public schools are an exception to this?

While my argument has nothing to do with socialism, i do not consider myself a socialist nor do i support a socialist system. While it may be good system in theory, but in theory every system is a good system and in my opinion it does not take the negative qualities of human nature into account, so thus it is always doomed to fail. My argument is simply that businesses, as a whole, are not better run than schools, as a whole, as some have claimed them to be.

You mean this?

So, to paraphrase, only the bottom line matters, the quality of product doesn't...

however, to paraphrase me, you agree that quality is factored into the bottom line equation.

Yes, we home school. Yes, I went to public school, I am not nor have I ever been "well off" (price of eggs in China?).

You seemed to be implying exactly that.

I was not providing evidence that schools have particular problems, but presenting the case that the basics of the public school model lends toward certain problems AND perpetuating them for an indeterminate time because of the lack of market direction in their operation.

The business model may experience identical problems, due to identical mismanagement, but the problems and mismanagement will be quickly curtailed due to termination of the party/parties responsible for the mismanagement or failure of the business. The bureaucratic setting does not lend itself to such correction.

Look at the Soviet Union. It is not the tyranny that brought it down, but the incessant deficit spending based on central planning that had no benefit of market inputs.

Yep, but for the time being it would be nice if they would try to be efficient...unfortunately, only market forces can guide such efficiencies.

If you look at what I said, I said that quality matters only as it relates to the bottom line. Other things that matter as well are availability of materials, demand for the product on the market, and the current economic environment, just to name a few.


Good for you for home schooling, but not every family has the ability to do that. Some just don't have time, or education, to teach their kids everything they need to know to make it in the work force.

School was never intended to be the primary means in which children are taught, it was meant to supplement the education that their parents provided. But as parents demanded that schools teach more, so they would have to teach less, schools have evolved into their present form. Market forces, supply and demand and all that.


I guess you and me are in the same boat. I don't have kids so every dollar I pay towards taxes pays for someone else to send their kid to school. Schools are held accountable as much as people hold them accountable, after all the higher management are nothing but politicians.

In a public school, the only thing that matters is the top line, if you will. In a business, the medium of exchange is money. If I have a business, I have to give you something you want in exchange for your money. You choose to give me your money, or to give it to another business who has something closer to what you want. Since, as you note, I'm only really interested in my bottom line, I'm going to try to give you what you want. As cheaply as possible, of course.

In a public school the dynamics are completely different. As a public entity I don't have to give the customer (the parents of the children) what they want because they don't have a choice about giving me money. The money is taken by force at the point of a gun. If I'm a teacher in the public school, the organization that represents me - the teacher's union - is the most powerful player in the education system. The union doesn't care about the students, they're there to get me some of the spoils taken by force. My powerful organization elects the school board, who decides how the spoils are divided up.

As a public school, I only have to keep the parents just happy enough that they don't revolt and vote in charter schools or vouchers, like they've done in several places around the country.

The business model isn't perfect. It's just been shown over and over to work better than the public model in education.

As to certifications being part of the qualifications - I taught college courses and no certification was required. I can make any hoop to jump through and call it a certification. Unless that certification correlates with better teaching, which it doesn't, it's only an artificial qualification.

In some states, florists have to get certified. Almost none can pass the test. In those states it's illegal to sell a flower arrangement without the certification.

Certifications have long been used to limit the market.

You make a false assumption; you say that businesses sell things as cheaply as possible while that is not always the case. A great example, look at the price of dvds. When they first come out they cost ~$20, but after a few months they sell for ~$10 then after a year ~$5. The cost to manufacture hasn't changed, only the perceived value of the product.

Your cause and affect is backwards. Public education is a Right that is in the State Constitution, so the money is taken "AT GUN POINT!!!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!" to provide a tuition free Public education system. So you are correct, teachers are not directly accountable to parents, they are accountable to the governing body that set standards and measures results. These governing bodies, the school boards and various state level politicians, who are accountable to The People.

As an employee, are you accountable to the customer, or your boss?


Here is my opinion on certifications: There are two types of people in the world, those who look for certifications and those who look for experience. People who look for experience know what they are looking for, those who are looking for certifications don't. So these certifications are offered as a way to allow ill-informed people a way to get a grasp on what they think they are looking for.

The reason there are certification for teachers is that people keep electing politicians who are just pro-life, or pro-gun, or pro-environment, or pro/anti-whatever and these politicians know nothing about education so they make these certification requirements as a way to grasp how they think education should be done. But then that works for any type of certification.

College classes are a whole different animal since they are not required by law to provide a service to anyone and everyone in the public.

 

[dross]

You make a false assumption; you say that businesses sell things as cheaply as possible while that is not always the case. A great example, look at the price of dvds. When they first come out they cost ~$20, but after a few months they sell for ~$10 then after a year ~$5. The cost to manufacture hasn't changed, only the perceived value of the product.

I didn't say businesses SELL things as cheaply as possible, I said businesses will try to give you want you want as cheaply as possible. As cheaply as possible to the business. They want to sell to the customer for the highest price possible. These two things should be obvious.

As to prices, businesses don't set the price of anything. Prices are information in a free market. The market determines the price of a thing. In a forced market like public education however, the price is set by the deliverer of the service. This always results in a more expensive product. Always.

Your cause and affect is backwards. Public education is a Right that is in the State Constitution, so the money is taken "AT GUN POINT!!!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!" to provide a tuition free Public education system.

How can I have a right to what belongs to someone else? That's a perversion and a rape of the term "right." Governments don't have rights, they have powers. I have no right to force my neighbor to pay for my child's education. You can never have a right that requires someone else to do something. Rights are freedom from interference. Public education is the exact opposite of a right.

So you are correct, teachers are not directly accountable to parents, they are accountable to the governing body that set standards and measures results. These governing bodies, the school boards and various state level politicians, who are accountable to The People.

As an employee, are you accountable to the customer, or your boss?

Simplistic semantics. An employee is accountable to their supervisor. In a business, the entire organization is accountable to the customer. In government, the entire organization is accountable to the voter, which in public education means that those with a concentrated interest - the education establishment - will almost always outvote and out fund raise those with a diffused interest - the citizen.

Here is my opinion on certifications: There are two types of people in the world, those who look for certifications and those who look for experience. People who look for experience know what they are looking for, those who are looking for certifications don't. So these certifications are offered as a way to allow ill-informed people a way to get a grasp on what they think they are looking for.

Opinions are like stuff you read on the internet - often wrong. People who want to teach seek certifications because they can't get a job if they don't.

The reason there are certification for teachers is that people keep electing politicians who are just pro-life, or pro-gun, or pro-environment, or pro/anti-whatever and these politicians know nothing about education so they make these certification requirements as a way to grasp how they think education should be done. But then that works for any type of certification.

College classes are a whole different animal since they are not required by law to provide a service to anyone and everyone in the public.

The reason there is certification for teachers is because the teacher's unions want it that way, period.

As to college classes, the point of yours I was countering was that the certification meant anything in terms of real ability. You appear to agree with me on that now, though, based on your own argument.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I didn't say businesses SELL things as cheaply as possible, I said businesses will try to give you want you want as cheaply as possible. As cheaply as possible to the business. They want to sell to the customer for the highest price possible. These two things should be obvious.

As to prices, businesses don't set the price of anything. Prices are information in a free market. The market determines the price of a thing. In a forced market like public education however, the price is set by the deliverer of the service. This always results in a more expensive product. Always.

Ahh, now we are getting the core of the issue now. So businesses are not there to provide a product as cheaply as possible, but to make as much money as they can for themselves. I'm interested in how a system that is designed to make as much money as possible is for those who run the system is suppose to provide a quality product.

How can I have a right to what belongs to someone else? That's a perversion and a rape of the term "right." Governments don't have rights, they have powers. I have no right to force my neighbor to pay for my child's education. You can never have a right that requires someone else to do something. Rights are freedom from interference. Public education is the exact opposite of a right.

You have the right to a tuition free public education, as per the state constitution. The State is required to provide it, and they only way they can do it is to collect taxes in some way. If you wish to not take advantage of it then that is your choice.

Simplistic semantics. An employee is accountable to their supervisor. In a business, the entire organization is accountable to the customer. In government, the entire organization is accountable to the voter, which in public education means that those with a concentrated interest - the education establishment - will almost always outvote and out fund raise those with a diffused interest - the citizen.

I'm pretty sure most people in the education establishment are citizens as well. We have "majority takes all" system, kinda sucks when you're minority. The "concentrated interest" for anything will "outvote and out fund raise" those with "diffused interest", look at the groups AARP and NRA. A better example are political parties, they are groups with "concentrated interest", and always "outvote" and "out fund raise" independents, who have diffused interests.

Opinions are like stuff you read on the internet - often wrong. People who want to teach seek certifications because they can't get a job if they don't.

Ha, my opinions are my own nor do I try to pass them off as facts, as many here are trying to do. Everything said thus far in this thread has been about personal opinions.

You said you have taught in college without certification, so obviously someone can teach without one.

The reason there is certification for teachers is because the teacher's unions want it that way, period.

Show me proof that teacher unions want it that way, or it's your opinion, and you said before, opinions on the internet are often wrong.

As to college classes, the point of yours I was countering was that the certification meant anything in terms of real ability. You appear to agree with me on that now, though, based on your own argument.

Ahh, but that is an opinion, and as we have discussed, opinions on the internet are suspect.

Your original point about certifications was that it restricted otherwise qualified people. My counter argument was how do you determine qualified people, it had nothing to do with what i thought about certifications.

My opinion about certifications has always been that it is a substitution for experience, that hasn't changed in a long time.

 

[steveh_131]

Show me proof that teacher unions want it that way, or it's your opinion, and you said before, opinions on the internet are often wrong.

The 'Certified' Teacher Myth - WSJ.com

The study undermines the arguments from colleges of education and teachers unions, which say that traditional certification, which they control, is the only process that can produce quality teachers. The findings hold up even after controlling for race, ethnicity, free-lunch eligibility, class size and per-pupil state spending.

You seem to really take issue with capitalism in general. Most of your arguments so far reflect this.

 

[dross]

I get so bored arguing with people who ignore my points. Agree, disagree, argue, but don't pass over them as if I didn't bother to write anything.

Yawn.