Still Hating America.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Whoever said she shouldn't be? If you have annual testing you know which classes are tough and which ones are not. If a teacher is able to do better than the previous teacher that taught a similar type of class you give them a bonus. If a teacher fails to teach a certain class anything, you move them to a type of class that traditionally has been easier to teach (a classroom in an affluent neighborhood etc.). If they fail in that environment then clearly teaching should not be their chosen profession. If you have a teacher that is doing really well in an affluent school, you offer them a bonus to go to poorer school. If they don't work out in the poor school you send them back to the affluent school, but if they are successful at the poor school you give them a bonus and continue to give them bonses if they keep succeeding.

But you can't do any of this without data. And annual testing gives you that data.

What about new teachers? I certainly was not as good at my profession as I am now. How much time are you going to give people to get up to speed in their jobs before chucking them because they didn't get scores up in the first year?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Whoever said she shouldn't be? If you have annual testing you know which classes are tough and which ones are not. If a teacher is able to do better than the previous teacher that taught a similar type of class you give them a bonus. If a teacher fails to teach a certain class anything, you move them to a type of class that traditionally has been easier to teach (a classroom in an affluent neighborhood etc.). If they fail in that environment then clearly teaching should not be their chosen profession. If you have a teacher that is doing really well in an affluent school, you offer them a bonus to go to poorer school. If they don't work out in the poor school you send them back to the affluent school, but if they are successful at the poor school you give them a bonus and continue to give them bonses if they keep succeeding.

But you can't do any of this without data. And annual testing gives you that data.

does test-taking knowledge equate to being a good teacher? I think probably not. In a law firm, do you think GPA from LS equates directly to abilty as a lawyer?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said it's easy to get rid of bad teachers?

Well, when I implied it was difficult to get rid of bad teachers here are some of the responses:


Adder: When you said it was hard to get rid of teachers at LA unified: I read this and surmise that (a) they aren't trying, or (b) they initiate dismissal proceedings and that teachers have some reason to quite before the proceedings are concluded.

GGG: How many cases were brought? How many teachers resigned rather than fight a case? Maybe the problem is with administrators rather than the union?

GGG: Spanky, you were citing articles by paid conservative hacks that give no sources but lots of opinion, of course we're going to look at their credentials!Those weren't arguments, they were conclusions - you have one citation that you are very excited about - one teacher fired through the process in 10 years. Can you find me an original source, not an op-ed without footnotes or an editorial, but an actual verifiable sources, that gives that fact?

GGG: Dissent. There are generally two protections teachers get: one under their union contract, one under civil service. True "Tenure" is relatively uncommon in K-12; what exists instead is a seniority based system (last hired, first fired) to deal with downsizing that generally comes out of the union contracts and a civil service system that provides a required process for terminating an employee. It's civil service that is the issue in a hiring for failure to do one's job. The union might send a lawyer to represent the teacher, but the union contract is unlikely to be at issue.

(For example, the Mass statute at issue provides "A teacher with professional teacher status [what Spanky thinks of as tenure], pursuant to section forty-one, shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards developed pursuant to section thirty-eight of this chapter or other just cause. " And there's an arbitration process to figure out these things. You see - they can be fired for most of the things Spanky says they can't be fired for, provided the superintendent can prove them.

Adder after I said it was hard to fire teachers: quote:
________________________________________
I have heard about the problems with firing a Los Angeles School Teacher.
________________________________________

I have heard the exact same complaints, from the exact set of republican talking points, in many other jurisdictions. Why do you think California is different?


Adder: But I am not sure that reduce job protections for teachers is necessary to do it. In part because I don't think the problem is as widespread as you think it is.

Adder: 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.

Adder: 3. They have always been able to fire bad teachers. To extent that bad teachers are even a statistically relevant problem (they likely are not), there is no union system in the world that provides a bar to firing people who are demonstrably incompetent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What about new teachers? I certainly was not as good at my profession as I am now. How much time are you going to give people to get up to speed in their jobs before chucking them because they didn't get scores up in the first year?

I don't know but I am sure a fair system could be worked out. Just because a system is set up that gets rid of people that can't do their jobs doesn't mean the system has to expel people that can't do their jobs right away. But at some point they should be expected to be able to teach, don't you agree? and if they are not successful at teaching at first, that is a pretty expensive learning curve paid for by the students in their class. Don't they already have a system where teh student nurses assist in classes before they go on their own.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Medicare Modernization Act put an 18 month moritorium on physician owned specialty hospitals back in 2003, and the moritorium was extended administratively for awhile after that. In Texas, they're pretty damned popular amongst the plastic surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, and cardiologists (especially the interventionalists).

They tend to be physician owned,* and they tend to be specialty specific. While the moritorium was going on, some of them operated as ambulatory surgery centers and made a shitload of money in the day surgery market.

Physicians love them because they can pick and choose the patients and the procedures. They take the lucrative ones and leave the rest for general hospitals. And of course, they get to share in the profits of the hospital, which they can't do otherwise.** General hospitals, understandably, are pretty irritated with their presence. It's not unheard of for the entire orthopaedic surgery department to take off and build its own hospital.***

Of course, this means that the general hosptials are taking a "if you can't beat them join them" approach by upgrading their own facilities and cratering to every demand by whatever department is threatening to leave next (without, of course, running afoul of anti-kickback, tax and Stark laws).

Anyhow, the Houston Chronicle has an interesting article today on specialty hospitals. A patient crashed in one in Abeline and the staff had to call 911 because they didn't have anyone there that could handle it. Congress is again looking into the issue, and I wonder if an 18 month moratorium is the best case scenario. I could see a ban entirely arising, given the new make up of Congress.

The contention, and since Stark is involved this is unsurprising, is that the specialty hosptials are looking more into making money than they are taking care of patients. I agree, but I'm also concerned about weakening other general hosptials. Yes, competition is good, but I have a problem with the cherry picking. A person walks into something called a "hosptial" and they should expect to be taken care of in general, not for the one thing that they walked in there for. This is going to be a very interesting fight in the coming months, and I think that physicians aren't going to end up the winners at the end.


*I see this as the latest iteration of the physician get rich quick schemes that have been going on since time immemorial. The last one was the "integrated delivery care network." The rash of 501(a) groups in the mid 90s in Texas was another crash and burn idea that's come and gone. Usually, the idea dies a pretty quick death when it turns out that no one is making as much money as they thought they were going to.

**Blame Stark and Waxman for that. And in some states, like California and Texas, the prohibition on the corproate practice of medicine.

***There is one new specialty hospital built outside of the Medical Center that calls itself "University General Hospital". To the best of my knowledge, the physicians that practice there are not affiliated with UT, Baylor or Cornell (or UH or Rice or St. Thomas or HBU or TSU or any other non-medical University in town). I wonder how long before the AG's office starts asking them questions about how they're representing themselves. And it's not on any street, avenue, road or other through way called "University."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does test-taking knowledge equate to being a good teacher? I think probably not. In a law firm, do you think GPA from LS equates directly to abilty as a lawyer?

I definitely do not think Law School GPA has anything to do with the quality of lawyer. I am also not talking about testing the teachers, I am talking about testing the students. In our education system, especiall in the early years, the job of the school is to teach kids how to read, write and do basic math. It is not hard to test for that. If the kids in the class are learning to read better and able to do better in math, it is easy to test to see if they have improved from the previous year.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I definitely do not think Law School GPA has anything to do with the quality of lawyer. I am also not talking about testing the teachers, I am talking about testing the students. In our education system, especiall in the early years, the job of the school is to teach kids how to read, write and do basic math. It is not hard to test for that. If the kids in the class are learning to read better and able to do better in math, it is easy to test to see if they have improved from the previous year.

but you said you wouldn't hurt a teacher from a difficult class becuase the teacher would only need pass a test.

if it's the kids, how do you balance for the problem class?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but you said you wouldn't hurt a teacher from a difficult class becuase the teacher would only need pass a test.

if it's the kids, how do you balance for the problem class?

If I ever suggested testing a teacher, then I misstyped. I have never meant to suggest that teachers should be tested. Who cares what they know, the only issue should be if they can teach.

Like I said before, testing will let you know what are tradionally tough classes to teach (i.e. fifth grade at JKF etc.) Or a certain tracks of kids (the kids that started school at Lincoln in 2001). So if a teacher doesn't perform well one place you move them to another place that is easier. But if they can't perform well anywhere, then you let them go.

If a teacher performs well in a easy place, you offer them a bonus to go to a harder place, and if they succeed in the hard place you keep paying them bonuses if they keep succeeding.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well, when I implied it was difficult to get rid of bad teachers here are some of the responses:

You didn't imply. You said that they "can't" fire bad teachers. And I am not going back to look, but I am nearly certain you also said it was "impossible" to fire teachers.

But this is why I said you should run for office. You are doing a great job of backpedalling without admitting it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You didn't imply. You said that they "can't" fire bad teachers. And I am not going back to look, but I am nearly certain you also said it was "impossible" to fire teachers.

But this is why I said you should run for office. You are doing a great job of backpedalling without admitting it.

You are taking my argument to the extreme and arguing against that extreme position. It is really dishonest. I kept citing that stat that LA unified had only fired one teacher in ten years for incompetance. If I was trying to argue it was impossible, that statistic would not support my argument would it? And if that stat didn't support my position why were you and GGG tyring to discredit it?

Of course it is not impossible. But it is difficult, and because it is difficult, it is bad for our education system.

I was arguing it should be easier to fire bad teachers to improve our education system. That was the main argument I was trying to make. Are you saying you agree with that statement (that it is hard to fire bad teachers), but where simply arguing that it was not impossible to fire bad teachers? That whole stupid exchange was just because you thought it was not impossible but you do agree that it should be easier to fire bad teachers?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are taking my argument to the extreme and arguing against that extreme position. It is really dishonest. I kept citing that stat that LA unified had only fired one teacher in ten years for incompetance. If I was trying to argue it was impossible, that statistic would not support my argument would it? And if that stat didn't support my position why were you and GGG tyring to discredit it?

Of course it is not impossible. But it is difficult, and because it is difficult, it is bad for our education system.

I was arguing it should be easier to fire bad teachers to improve our education system. That was the main argument I was trying to make. Are you saying you agree with that statement (that it is hard to fire bad teachers), but where simply arguing that it was not impossible to fire bad teachers? That whole stupid exchange was just because you thought it was not impossible but you do agree that it should be easier to fire bad teachers?

The whole stupid exchange is because you showed up, proclaimed truth, intentionally implied that there was no ambiguity in what you were saying, and made proposterous assertions of fact.

Now you are substantially tempering what you said earlier and pretending you didn't say it.

And no, I don't agree that it should be easier to fire teachers. But I am trying to let this stupid discussion die so I will not repeat myself explaining why again.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
The whole stupid exchange is because you showed up,

Showed up? Did I leave?

Originally posted by Adder
proclaimed truth, intentionally implied that there was no ambiguity in what you were saying,

I made an argument. That is what people do on this board. Either I backed it up well or I didn't, but you are focused on the tone. Did you get this emotional about everything?

Originally posted by Adder

and made proposterous assertions of fact.

What assertion of fact did I make that was so proposterous? You love to throw these statements out and then never back them up.

Originally posted by Adder
Now you are substantially tempering what you said earlier and pretending you didn't say it.

Then why do you keep accusing me of repeating myself?
You are so full of it. My argument has not change at all. It has been the same all the way through and I have not "tempered it".

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I made an argument.

No. You made assertions. Starting with the assertion that the main problem with schools is teachers unions.

Arguments are more than bare assertions. Arguments include premises, facts, and conclusions. You know, like the one that I laid out for you a few days ago that you are now largely adopting now that you are saying that you believe the problem with schools is bad teachers.

Did you get this emotional about everything?

You should not assume that I am emotional.

What assertion of fact did I make that was so proposterous?

Do you read what people write in response to you? Because there were at least two days worth of posts on this. Again, I am going to repeat them.

You love to throw these statements out and then never back them up.

See above. Go back and read this thread again from the beginning. Try to remain calm long enough absorb what others are saying.

Then why do you keep accusing me of repeating myself?

Because for two days (or so) of discussion, you did nothing but repeat yourself. On the third you cited some op-eds that agreed with you.

My argument has not change at all. It has been the same all the way through and I have not "tempered it".

This is tiresome. What words came after "tempered" in my post above? But you have, in this case, tempered your ridiculous factual assertions.

And that is the last I am going to say as I am now arguing with you about your argument style, which is even worse than arguing with you about substance of your assertions.

[sgtclub]

• Tentative Deal in N. Korea Nuclear Talks
  
  Feb 12 2:52 PM US/Eastern
  
  
  By JAE-SOON CHANG
  Associated Press Writer
  
  
  
  
  
  
  BEIJING (AP) -- Negotiators reached a tentative agreement on initial steps for North Korea's nuclear disarmament, the U.S. envoy to the talks said Tuesday.
  Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said the agreement outlined specific commitments for North Korea and would set up working groups to implement those goals to begin meeting in about a month. He declined to give other details.
  
  
  
  "I'm encouraged by this that we were able to take a step forward on the denuclearization issue," Hill said.
  
  The agreement could mark the first step toward disarmament in more than three years of inconclusive negotiations and deadlock. The process reached its lowest point in October when North Korea conducted its first nuclear test explosion.
  
  The draft agreement came after 16 hours of what Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang called "extraordinarily intensive consultations" on the fifth day of talks.
  
  "Some positive results have been achieved," Qin said, but added that the negotiators would have to meet again later Tuesday in Beijing.
  
  Japan's chief envoy said it was "too early to tell" if his government was satisfied with the deal.
  
  "I believe that countries have compromised somewhat toward an agreement," Kenichiro Sasae said, declining to give any specifics.
  
  The current round of six-nation talks began Thursday on a promising note after the United States and North Korea signaled a willingness to compromise. But negotiations quickly became mired on the issue of how much energy aid the North would get in exchange for initial steps of disarmament.
  
  Other delegates at the talks _ which also include Russia and South Korea _ had called North Korea's earlier demands for energy excessive.
  
  South Korean and Japanese media reports gave varying accounts of how much energy North Korea was demanding, including up to 2 million kilowatts of electricity or 2 million tons of heavy fuel oil.
  
  Under a 1994 U.S.-North Korea disarmament agreement, the North was to receive 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year before construction was completed of two nuclear reactors that would be able to generate 2 million kilowatts of electricity.
  
  That deal fell apart in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of conducting a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear crisis.
  
  The apparent progress came after the U.S. envoy said the meetings that began Monday would be the last day for this round of talks, saying the possibility for a breakthrough was solely in North Korea's hands.
  
  ____
  
  

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
What assertion of fact did I make that was so proposterous? You love to throw these statements out and then never back them up.

Not wanting to read the transcript in front of me, here are some examples:

Post 5: "The truth is, school systems that are controlled by Republicans do more with less money. So true equality of opportunity would mean everyone would go to a school system run by Republicans."

Post 51: "And if you look at at school districts their performance and their income is not related at all."

Post 110: "Yes there are other elements that might make urban schools more expensive, but they are not that significant."

"They have the dance of the Lemons where it is impossible to fire a teacher or a Principle..." (emphasis added)

"The Teacher's Union .... have made it impossible to fire anyone." (emphasis added)

Post 116: "In LA they write their own contracts."


Post 177: "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."

" If you think you can fire a bad teacher in California you are either unbelievably misinformed or a liar. In California to fire a teacher, after tenure, they have to commit some sort of "bad" act. Not teaching anything is not grounds for dismissal." (emphasis added)

Post 205: "Once the student is behind in a social promotion system they can never catch up."

Post 207: "In what case a teacher had been transferred ten times in twelve years because of parent complaints yet they couldn’t fire her."

"This is not Republican dogma.' (okay, so this one is a cheap shot)

Post 209: "The administrators keep shuffling them around because they can't fire them." (emphasis added)

Post 272: "Specifically, the idea that teachers that don't teach can't be fired."

Post 318: "There is no question that schools with affluent students do better. But that is because the bad teachers are taken from those schools (because the parents complain) and put in bad schools where parents don't complain (the poorer districts)."

"One of the major factors that encourage students in poorer schools is the shame of being held back."

"Everyone else agrees they [the unholy troika] are bad."

ETA: This is leaving aside the absurdity of your insistence that you main three prescriptions will solve all school's ills.