Still Hating America.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Most business can't afford to have employees that don't do anything, or don't accomplish their job assignments. If they do, a more efficient business, that doesn't have idle employees, undercuts their price, provides better service for the same price, or both.

A business would never institute a policy like "tenure". The idea of tenure is just absurd. The California Teachers Association sees California Public Schools as a job corp program, not as an institution that is supposed to teach students, and consequently there are many teachers in California that don't think their job is to teach. Many just think their job is to occupy the students time so "they are not on the streets".

The California Teachers Association did not invent tenure.

Nor did it invent the concept of massive severance packages for failed executives, which I would suggest is as embarassing to corporate America as any tenure plan is to a school system.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I show how pathetic your argument is, and you respond by focusing on my spelling. Typical.

But you do realize that every sanctimonious misspelled post leads to another round of chuckles from everyone?

Adder, why'd you give this away? After he missed it the first time it was thrown in his face?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
A business would never institute a policy like "tenure". The idea of tenure is just absurd. The California Teachers Association sees California Public Schools as a job corp program, not as an institution that is supposed to teach students, and consequently there are many teachers in California that don't think their job is to teach. Many just think their job is to occupy the students time so "they are not on the streets".

It's right up there withthe idea of "Partnership" at law firms, accounting firms, and investment banks. Luckily, we've pulled up that ladder.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is unthinkable at any time that anyone thought social promotion is any good. Only a liberal could come up with such a stupid idea.

This is typical of your argument style. You snarl a lot, you make categorical statements, you demonize your favorite targets ("liberals", "unions", "the Democrat party"), and you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge or even minimal research.

The question is not whether social promotion is "good." The question is whether it is better than the alternative. The alternative is holding kids back, aka retention. Lots of schools have had greater problems with retention than they had with social promotion, and they have switched back and forth for that reason.

You act as if this is purely black-and-white, and that only people who are evil and stupid (i.e., your definition of "liberal") could possibly disagree with you. Yet two minutes on Google will pull for you a host of sources that identify the difficulties with retention, including difficulties encountered in school systems that eliminated social promotion. Those difficulties include increased drop-out rates and increased major behavioral problems with the kids held back.

The reality is that neither of these all-or-nothing approaches is particularly effective, and what you need is intervention and tutoring that leads to kids being promoted AND to their being ready for promotion. But this sort of ideological diatribe, blame-the-liberals/unions snarling, only indicates views that are driven not by information or experience but by political sentiment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The California Teachers Association did not invent tenure.

Did I ever claim different? Are you defending the idea of tenure?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nor did it invent the concept of massive severance packages for failed executives, which I would suggest is as embarassing to corporate America as any tenure plan is to a school system.

Did I ever say business in America was perfect? Are you saying that because there are some absurd severence packages that it is OK that the schools in CA suck? Are you saying that a business could ever succeed in this country if it had a tenure system?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's right up there withthe idea of "Partnership" at law firms, accounting firms, and investment banks. Luckily, we've pulled up that ladder.

If a partner in Law Firm just stopped doing his or her job or starting pissing off all the clients, how long do you think they would last?

Teachers in LA that don't do their job, and anger the parents, keep their jobs. They just get moved to other schools?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your hypo is that client refuses to retain you at the rate you asked for and then -- no attorney-client relationship in his mind -- you just started to do the work anyway? If so, no malpractice. But if you agree to act as his attorney for the deal even though he hasn't agreed what to pay you, that's your problem.



No. But also not analogous to what teachers do when they work without a contract for a period, and then stop.

I dont know the specifics of teachers contracts, but if they are getting paid and gettiong benefits there is some contractual relationship formed. or are theh working for nothing right now?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I dont know the specifics of teachers contracts, but if they are getting paid and gettiong benefits there is some contractual relationship formed. or are theh working for nothing right now?

Perhaps they've agreed to keep working under the terms of the old contract.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Why does Guiliani stay in the Republican party? I can't see how this could work for him at the national level. It is pretty clear that the religious right will never let him have the nomination, right? Is he just setting himself up to be a third party guy at some point?


ETA: Maybe y'all have already discussed this and I missed it, but I'm not wading back into that disgusting vat of filth in order to find out.

If he would apologise for the Kidder3 thing I would think about suppourting him.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps they've agreed to keep working under the terms of the old contract.

"Agreed"?!?! then that's a contract, and the strike is walking out on a contract. They suck and are unprofessional and if lawyers or doctors did what they do, they woiuld be sued for malpractice, why can't you admit it? Why do hate America's youth? Do you realise that they are the future?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a partner in Law Firm just stopped doing his or her job or starting pissing off all the clients, how long do you think they would last?

Teachers in LA that don't do their job, and anger the parents, keep their jobs. They just get moved to other schools?

How many teachers have your kids had who just stopped doing his or her job?

I spend more hours arguing with teachers with whom I disagree than I do arguing with you. I have considerably more respect for the sincerity and the general intellectual capacity of the average teacher.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
"Agreed"?!?! then that's a contract, and the strike is walking out on a contract.

Not if they agree to work day-to-day under the terms of the old contract until there's a new one. Don't be obtuse.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Why does Guiliani stay in the Republican party?

Or in any party for that matter, to the extent his aspirations are high. Before 9/11 he was in essence cracking up. He quickly got his shit together for 9/11 but I think everyone got a taste of what the guy is like when he isn't in the middle of a war (or big fancy court case with high stakes). Would love to have a Pres with a vowel at the end of his (or her)** name but not him.




**(No, Penske. Not her).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I show how pathetic your argument is, and you respond by focusing on my spelling. Typical.

No. I responded about your spelling for two reasons. First, there is no point in talking to you about this, as you have simply accepted that teachers unions are bad (using your usual circular logic that they are the problem because they don't agree with your prescriptions).

And second, and most importantly, you had been called on it (read, made fun of for it) twice already today. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't pick up on anything other than a direct correction.

But now you have annoyed me into responding substantively. In no particular order:

1. Tenure. This is an ancient tradition originally intended to protect academic freedom (you know, the idea that you can explore and express ideas that aren't politically popular at the moment). It does seem a bit anachronistic for K-12 educators today given that we don't expect them to research and publish, but you are full of shit when you suggest that teachers with tenure can't be fired.

Again, you can fire them if you actually take the time to document their failures. Personally, I know of at least one tenured teacher who was forced into retirement for an inability to control her class.

You want to fire them more easily. The teachers, not surprisingly, don't really want to volunteer to be more subject to the whims of the just as likely to be incompetenent principals and administrators. You may think that it is in the public interest to weaken their job protections, but it is absolute bullshit to condemn teachers for not agreeing with you.

2. Testing. The main effect of more standardized testing is more standardized education. That may be a good thing, or it may not be. If you assume that all students will be better served by spending the millions that it costs develop, implement and administer the tests, then fine. Some people think that rather than more testing, that money could be spent on smaller class sizes and greater diversity on education opportunities (music, arts, vocational ed, etc).

But again, you really seem to like testing because it gives you more data that you can use to identify those evil bad teachers that you hate. Given what you want to do with the test (i.e. fire teachers) it is again hardly surprising that teachers would really want to support you.

Under the system you describe, a teacher who gets a bad draw of student in even a single year (meaning students a class that is on average worse than others, or maybe just one that doesn't respond well to that teacher) would have his/her career hindered (i.e. transferred elsewhere). This is like suggesting that associates should be removed from firms for not getting along with a single partner.

3. Social promotion. Again, social promotion makes no sense if (1) confidence plays no role in acheivement and (2) all children develop at the same rate if only they are taught well. Both are demonstrable false. Especially for the primary years, (1) can be very important and very fragile, which is why social promotion exists in the first space.

Let's take an example. Maybe one second grader, let's call him Spanky, is a little behind his classmates. He is progressing, but is maybe a month or two behind. It isn't that Spanky isn't smart, it isn't that Spanky has been poorly tauht, instead it is just that Spanky late bloomer. At the end of the year, we can either hold Spanky back, and impliedly tell him he is stupid and inadequate, or we can let him go to third grade and give him a little extra help until he catches up.

Surely you agree that there is a very careful judgment involved in which option will best serve Spanky. And surely you think that maybe people who actually teach children might have something meaningful to say about each individual decision.

That said, of course it can go to far. You would expect less educational value in social promotion for older kids, for example, but you can't seriously suggest that there is anything absolute to be said.

4. Teachers don't think that their job is to teach. Maybe in California (although I REALLY doubt it), but I can tell you that I know MANY teachers. Some of them are great, so of them I think are less great. Every single one of them thinks there job is to help children learn. That fact that you would question again tell me that your analysis of these issues goes no further than republican party dogma.

__________

Finally, I know this is shocking, but some people - maybe even people who , you know, actually work with children and pay attention to education policy - who might have other ideas.

But never you mind. You just keep spouting the party line. Everything esle has been tried and failed, and you, as usual, have a monopoly on truth. Even though you ignore innumerable other challenges to quality education.

I will save my rant on the myth of the universal failure of American schools for another day. But it will suffice for now to repeat that Hank is wrong to suggest that "most" schools are equivalent to failing businesses.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is typical of your argument style. You snarl a lot, you make categorical statements, you demonize your favorite targets ("liberals", "unions", "the Democrat party"), and you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge or even minimal research.

The question is not whether social promotion is "good." The question is whether it is better than the alternative. The alternative is holding kids back, aka retention. Lots of schools have had greater problems with retention than they had with social promotion, and they have switched back and forth for that reason.

You act as if this is purely black-and-white, and that only people who are evil and stupid (i.e., your definition of "liberal") could possibly disagree with you. Yet two minutes on Google will pull for you a host of sources that identify the difficulties with retention, including difficulties encountered in school systems that eliminated social promotion. Those difficulties include increased drop-out rates and increased major behavioral problems with the kids held back.

The reality is that neither of these all-or-nothing approaches is particularly effective, and what you need is intervention and tutoring that leads to kids being promoted AND to their being ready for promotion. But this sort of ideological diatribe, blame-the-liberals/unions snarling, only indicates views that are driven not by information or experience but by political sentiment.

As always, I should shut up and let Sidd (and SAM) say what I am trying to say far more effectively.