The 4Rs: Readin', 'Ritin', 'Rithmatic and Rifles?

West Virginia considering school gun lessons


AFP ^
West Virginia is considering a bill to teach schoolchildren how to handle a gun and hunt safely its proponent hopes will increase state revenues from hunting licenses, a state lawmaker said Thursday. "We will teach a hunting safety course during their physical education class," state senator and bill sponsor Billy Wayne Bailey told AFP. The courses would be imparted in secondary schools, from the eighth to 10th grade (13-16 years of age). "They will learn gun safety, the proper use of fire arms. All the weapons will be disabled so there is no chance of discharging," he said, adding that...

Columbine High Graduates, Click Here

With the amount of kids in WV that hunts, I fail to see how a gun safety course is a bad thing.

Granted, it shouldn't be taught in our school system. But then neither should home economics (or whatever they call it these days), drivers education, dance, gym or a litany of other wasted courses that are taught by teachers making in excess of $50K/year.

IMO, if we cut all this fraudulent, unnecessary waste from our schools, we could afford to pay competent people to teach math, science and other credible courses.

Aaron wrote:Granted, it shouldn't be taught in our school system.

Why shouldn't it, do you believe?

Aaron wrote:But then neither should home economics (or whatever they call it these days), drivers education, dance, gym or a litany of other wasted courses that are taught by teachers making in excess of $50K/year.

That would be good work if you can find it. My wife holds two masters degrees plus 45 hours. She is certified in English, Writing, Reading, Journalism, Learning Disabilities , and behavoral issues. She has been teaching for 18 years. She makes around $42K.

Aaron wrote:IMO, if we cut all this fraudulent, unnecessary waste from our schools, we could afford to pay competent people to teach math, science and other credible courses.

That is a very true statement. I am amazed at how much adminsitration exists and how many of those job seem to overlap. Additionally, I didn't know this until recently, but service personal positions are mainly mandated by law. Additionally, we have bus drivers whose routes are mainly in town. When I was a kid we walked or our parents picked us up. Additionally, when I was in school I can only remember one assistant principle and he only existed for a year or so, otherwise it was just the prinicple and that was it.

Cato wrote:Why shouldn't it, do you believe?

I just don't see a need for it in the school system. I think it would be a fundamental waste of taxpayer dollars.

Cato wrote:That would be good work if you can find it. My wife holds two masters degrees plus 45 hours. She is certified in English, Writing, Reading, Journalism, Learning Disabilities , and behavoral issues. She has been teaching for 18 years. She makes around $42K.

Her total compensation package is well over $50K, as is the average teacher when defined benefits are added.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:Why shouldn't it, do you believe?

I just don't see a need for it in the school system. I think it would be a fundamental waste of taxpayer dollars.

I agree it doesn't need to be taught. I was just wondering why you thought I would be a waste of tax dollars. While we are discussing waste by the way, I tell you another area that I find wasteful. I wouldn't be hurt none to see all athletics ended in school. Schools are for academics not athletics. I think far to much emphesis is placed on athletics and not enough is place on academics. For example, let a kid do well on the football team, he is well honored. Let a kid to exceptional at an academic competition and he may never be heard of.

Cato wrote:That would be good work if you can find it. My wife holds two masters degrees plus 45 hours. She is certified in English, Writing, Reading, Journalism, Learning Disabilities , and behavoral issues. She has been teaching for 18 years. She makes around $42K.

Her total compensation package is well over $50K, as is the average teacher when defined benefits are added.[/quote]

With benefits she makes approximately $50K per year. However, in my wife's case I have her on my insurance plan and she opted out of the old retirement system and went under the new 401K system. The only thing the board of Ed pays besides her salary is to pay their portion of FICA and Medicare match and to match what she puts in retirement.

Question for you. What salary level should teachers be at?

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:Why shouldn't it, do you believe?

I just don't see a need for it in the school system. I think it would be a fundamental waste of taxpayer dollars.

I agree it doesn't need to be taught. I was just wondering why you thought I would be a waste of tax dollars. While we are discussing waste by the way, I tell you another area that I find wasteful. I wouldn't be hurt none to see all athletics ended in school. Schools are for academics not athletics. I think far to much emphesis is placed on athletics and not enough is place on academics. For example, let a kid do well on the football team, he is well honored. Let a kid to exceptional at an academic competition and he may never be heard of.

Cato wrote:That would be good work if you can find it. My wife holds two masters degrees plus 45 hours. She is certified in English, Writing, Reading, Journalism, Learning Disabilities , and behavoral issues. She has been teaching for 18 years. She makes around $42K.

Her total compensation package is well over $50K, as is the average teacher when defined benefits are added.

With benefits she makes approximately $50K per year. However, in my wife's case I have her on my insurance plan and she opted out of the old retirement system and went under the new 401K system. The only thing the board of Ed pays besides her salary is to pay their portion of FICA and Medicare match and to match what she puts in retirement.

Question for you. What salary level should teachers be at?[/quote]

With the current system we have in place where teachers are paid by length of service AND education, the arcane tenure laws we have and the quality of service they put out, I think teachers overall are fairly compensated.

Now if they're willing to put tenure and how they're paid on the board, then I'd support higher pay for some teachers based on subject taught and location. Otherwise, I think the annual 3% raise is more then fair given their overall compensation package.