Should taxpayers get a rebate for schools that aren’t open?

I believe this is a valid and an honest question.

If you pay local property taxes on your home or business, the lion’s share of what you pay goes towards funding your local schools.

Taxpayers pay these school taxes, whether they have school-aged children or not, in order to guarantee the children in their community receive an education, and eventually, hopefully, become intelligent and productive members of society…, at least until they go to college.

If our local governments decide to close our schools, should we still be paying for them?

If they decided to discontinue garbage collection, would you still be forced to pay for that?

Just sayin’.

It really doesn’t matter if you think the schools should be closed or not.

It really doesn’t matter whether your local government is “following the science” or not. 

If the children of our community are not receiving the education we are paying for (and I’m sorry, but this distance learning crap doesn’t count), why shouldn’t the taxpayers get at least a percentage (a big percentage) of the money back that they paid?

Why should teachers get paid for a job they aren’t doing?

Why should the local school district be paid for the upkeep, utilities, and support staffs for buildings our children aren’t using?

And, again, I’m sorry, but this distance learning crap doesn’t count.

No wonder why the teachers are hesitant about going back to work, like in Chicago.

Why go back when you can use COVID as a ready-made excuse, and continue to be paid for doing next to nothing?

Why go back when all of the “the scientists” in the teachers’ unions are overriding the scientists from the CDC (Center for Disease Control)?

Now I’ve heard that the Biden administration considers a school “re-opened” if they hold classes one day a week. 

If you say so, Illegitimate Joe.

This was one of the Biden administration’s “clarifications” of their official policy.

That’s funny, because only a month ago these “clarifications” were called lies.  

If it’s one thing we have learned, it’s that “it’s all about the money,” and not “all about the kids.”  

If the teachers stopped getting paid, and the school districts stopped getting their share of the money, the schools would be reopening so fast it would make your head spin!

Of course, hell would freeze over before a penny of taxpayer money was ever returned to the taxpayers.

That being said, there are many taxpayers across our country who really should be receiving some of their hard-earned money back.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

As far as support for educating our children goes…, actions (and money) speak louder than words.

No one would deny that educating our children properly and effectively should be one our society’s highest priorities.

Right?

I mean, every election cycle, isn’t “education” always a hot topic?

Isn’t the education of the country’s children a priority?

Many of us talk a good “education” game, but then when it comes to putting money where our mouths are, we drop the ball.

pay 11

We can talk about the importance of “education” all we want…, but the numbers don’t lie.

If we value “education,” then don’t we have to value our teachers as well?

After all, what is “education” without teachers?

Effective learning and effective teaching go hand in hand.

But the numbers don’t lie…, and apparently, we don’t value our teachers very much at all.

If we look at the top 25 paying jobs in America, per the Glassdoor website, we won’t find any teaching jobs here.

pay 1

But they must be fairly close to making the top 25 list, right?

I mean in order to even be hired as a teacher, a bachelor’s degree in “Education” is required, along with a “teachable” minor degree. State competency tests must be passed, and a background check must be passed as well, before someone can then be “certified” as a “teacher.”

On-going professional training and college level courses must then be completed prior to being re-certified every five years.

Note: Glassdoor is a website where current and former employees anonymously review companies. Glassdoor also allows users to anonymously submit and view salaries as well as search and apply for jobs on its platform.

So where do teachers come in?

Well, according to the United States Department of Labor, with data as of 2018, the highest ranking teaching position would be a college law professor.  Ranking at number 37, with an average annual salary of $130,710.

Next on their list would be a college medical professor.  Ranking at number 46, and averaging $122,320 annually.

We continue to see more college level positions scattered throughout the next 64 positions…, which then brings us to Elementary and Secondary Education Administrators, ranked at 110, earning $98,750 annually.

But that’s the “Administrators.”

So our regular old “school teachers” should be coming up soon, right?

As we continue through the list, I don’t see them as we go all the way down to number 200.

I then continue down the list, and I still don’t see teachers listed in the top 300!

Then finally…, there…, all the way down at position 370 are our elementary and secondary teachers, with an average yearly salary of $62,200.

Yes folks…, we value our children’s education so much that we are willing to pay their teachers an average of $62K per year.

We value our children’s education so much that their teacher’s salary ranks 370th on the list of highest paying jobs in our country, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

370th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

But the numbers don’t lie.

But 370th?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That means that there are 369 jobs out there that are apparently more valuable than being a teacher.

Off the top of your head…, could you list 10-15 jobs more important, or more difficult than being a teacher?

How about 15-25 jobs more important, or more difficult than being a teacher?

How about 100 jobs?!

200 jobs?!

300 jobs?!

369 jobs?!

Well, I think you get my point.

Teachers being ranked at number 370 on this list is absolutely ridiculous and a slap in the face to all of our teachers out there.

pay 2

I have to admit that I have personally been an elementary teacher and a high school teacher in my life, so I do carry some bias here…,

But number 370?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously?!

Believe me, it’s not easy managing the behavior of a classroom full of kids, while managing to instruct them across a curriculum with multiple subjects, not to mention all of the life lessons teachers impart regarding communicating, getting along with others, manners, etc.

pay 5

And many, many teachers have to pay for many of their own classroom supplies and snacks on top of it!

And yet, some individuals will still say that teachers are overpaid!!!!

pay 3

Yes…, some say that Teachers’ salaries are driving up their taxes…, and that they only work 9 or 10 months a year on top of it!

Some people feel that Teachers are just glorified babysitters and that they should be paid as such.

pay 10

Okay…, well, let’s look at this scenario and see how much money we’d all save!

We can get a “babysitter” for way less than minimum wage, right?

That’s right!  Let’s give these “teachers” $3.00 an hour, which isn’t bad at all for your average babysitter…, and only for the hours they actually are in class; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school on grading papers, attending special programs, parent conferences, or running clubs or coaching sports.

pay 7

That would come to $19.50 a day (7:45 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., with 45 min. off for lunch and planning.  That equals 6 1/2 hours).  Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children.

Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30?  So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!!

Aha!!!

We’re not going to pay these teachers for any vacation days!

So, let’s see…, that’s $585 X 180 then, or…, $105,300 per year?

Wait…, what?!  That can’t be right!  That’s way more than their making now!

How could that be?!

(That would move teachers all the way up the list to number 83!  That’s much better, but still quite low in comparison.)

But wait!

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees?

Well, we could be extra generous and pay them minimum wage ($7.75), you know…, like if they worked at Taco Bell or McDonald’s, and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8.00 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year!

I think we just lost a few of our complaining taxpayers!

I also think it’s time for us as a nation to get serious about our children’s education.

pay 8

pay 4

pay 6

pay 13

pay 9

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

The question isn’t “are you intelligent?”  It’s “how are you “intelligent?”

The theory of multiple intelligences was started back in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, a professor of education at Harvard University.

mult inteligence 1

He felt that the older beliefs about intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, were not really fair and far too limited.

Instead, Dr. Gardner proposed eight different types of intelligences to represent a wider range of interests in children and adults. These intelligences are:

mult intelligence 3

Our schools typically focus most of their attention on linguistic (reading and writing) and mathematical intelligence.  For students who happen to be naturally talented in these areas, school is fun because they are successful.  For those of us who are more talented in other areas, school can be frustrating, difficult and/or boring.

mult intelligence 4

It would be nice if we could place equal attention on individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, tradespeople, musicians, naturalists (nature, animals and or plants), designers, dancers, therapists, salespeople, entrepreneurs, and many others who enrich the world in which we live…, but that just is not the case.

Unfortunately, many students who have these gifts don’t receive much reinforcement or encouragement in school.  Many of these students, in fact, end up being labeled “learning disabled,” having “ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” or simple as underachievers, when their unique ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily tilted reading/writing and mathematical curriculum and classroom.

Every teacher out there has been made aware of the theory of multiple intelligences.  But the theory of multiple intelligences and how we address multiple intelligences does not translate well when we bump up against everyday reality, which has limited money, limited time, limited teacher resources, and large class sizes.

The challenge is to change our educational way of doing things so that each child has the opportunity to learn in ways that go along with their unique minds, ways of thinking, talents and interests.

The I.Q. test was developed in 1900 by a French psychologist, Alfred Binet.  The “I.Q” test does have some value, but it does not take into account many things regarding intelligence and talents that are not easily quantifiable.

As far as our schools are concerned, “Just because everyone is ‘treated the same’ does not mean ‘everyone is being treated fairly.’”

mult intelligence 2

(“Ctrl” and click on the following websites to access them.)

You can learn more about multiple intelligences and Howard Gardner at his website: http://www.howardgardner.com/

Here is a website where you can take your own multiple intelligences assessment: www.mypersonality.info

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑