Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
30? Wow. Decreasing class size is a laudable goal. I didn't realize it was that bad in California. It would appear that California needs to hire about half again as many teachers (dropping to 20 students per class). Good luck with that. (Alternatively, I suppose, they could just kick out a third of the students.)
|
When Wilson passed the class reduction bill (Republican governor and Democrat legislature) California went through a huge hiring binge. They got so desperate they would hire just about anyone. The hired people and let them finish their college degrees and certifications while they were teaching. When it came time to implement the program at the upper levels the momentum just died. The teachers association did not support it ( the gave it lip service but no real muscle). To this day I am still confused why this happened. When I called the moderate Republican legislators I have influence with, they told me that smaller class sizes had not improved anything in the elementary school level so there was not reason to do it at the upper levels. When I told them that the studies must be wrong, because smaller class sizes just have to be better, I was laughed at. The Dems controlled the governership and the legislature and nothing happened. When the governator came into office I was hoping that he would revive it, but his adivsors have not made it a priority. I just don't get it. Testing and small class sized seem like a no brainer to me, but in California smaller class sizes has no support from either side of the aisle. This is not a partisan thing, just no one supports it. If someone could tell me why I would really like to know.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by baltassoc I think that one has to step back for a moment and consider what each side's objections really are.
|
I am in the middle of the battle. I know why the CTA doesn't like testing. It points out who the bad eggs are and there main job, like any union, is to protect their members jobs.
Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I can't speak for the CTA (and wouldn't want to), but my problem is not with standardized tests (which I think are important) but rather with what is done with that information. Low performance is punished, not fixed.
Think of it this way: you have a school that's doing badly. Its scores are going down, not up. So you slash its funding. Now it's going to get better?
In private enterprise, underperformers wither and die and are replaced by more efficient market entrants. That doesn't quite work with public schools.
|
In California the lower performing schools get more money. I don't think funding should be slashed. I think the administration should be replaced. I am only involved with state stuff so I don't know much about NCLB and I know there is penalty clause in there.. But in California for the funds being distribued by the state, no one is proposing taking money away from lower performing schools, the object is just to test, figure out who is doing their job and get rid of those who are not. That is what is being resisited.
