Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What does that have to do with the state of education? Business is not the problem it is the Teacher's Union. You don't see the business lobby blocking testing, or reforms to make it easier to fire teachers.

I was just trying to understand why they're powerful. You have now put things in context, but telling me that teachers are powerful in the same way that business is, only less so because they have less money.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you don't test students, you engage in social promotion, and you can't fire incompetant teachers it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens.

1. They always tested students.

2. They engaged in social promotion because those who actually studied these things thought it was a good idea at the time. It is falling out of favor now, not because of noble conservatives enforcing standards on the evildoers, but because expereience has raised questions about the underlying theory. It has nothing to do with whether students are difficult to deal with when they are held back.

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. But you do have to demonstrate.

Seriously, you know nothing about this topic. Stop talking about it.

[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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

Spanky says the religious right likes him enough. The rest of us have been suspending disbelief.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was just trying to understand why they're powerful. You have now put things in context, but telling me that teachers are powerful in the same way that business is, only less so because they have less money.

A business with the sucess numbers of most public schools would be out of business.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe the contract they wrote before they decided is not good enough? People can always want more money. The fact that these teachers can demand more of anything, when the system is just a wreck is pathetic.

No, it was actually the contract offered by the district.

Teachers' unions are powerful. And they put some stupid rules in place. But claiming that they "write their own contracts" is ridiculous.

[Hank Chinaski]

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.

he is a "blue state" republican. Mass. had a rep. gov for a long time- until recently we had a 3 term Rep. governor. To win they had to distance themselves from the loons. Maybe lieberman has softened up the landscape so the threat of "if I lose the nomination I will run as an independant" will be enough to get the nomination. especially if the loons have their votes split between a couple.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
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.

Sissy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A business with the sucess numbers of most public schools would be out of business.

As it happens, I spent much of Saturday in a line at U-Haul, and I would beg to differ.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A business with the sucess numbers of most public schools would be out of business.

"most"? You also do not know what you are talking about.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A business with the sucess numbers of most public schools would be out of business.

Never heard of Microsoft?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
1. They always tested students.

2. They engaged in social promotion because those who actually studied these things thought it was a good idea at the time. It is falling out of favor now, not because of noble conservatives enforcing standards on the evildoers, but because expereience has raised questions about the underlying theory. It has nothing to do with whether students are difficult to deal with when they are held back.

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. But you do have to demonstrate.

Seriously, you know nothing about this topic. Stop talking about it.

You are so full of it sometimes. I do know about this topic. You are demonstrating clearly that you do not know anything about it. I have been put on a board by the Governator that deals directly with this issue.

Social promotion may be out of favor in some areas, but the Teachers Unions in California have not gotten the memo. They fight dropping social promotion every step of the way. 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.

Just one month ago I listened to a representative from the CTA explain that the reason social promotion was necessary was because if you hold students back you end up with older students in younger classes and they can be a major disruptive influence in the younger class. When someone on the board suggested that they set up special classes for these students, the representative responded that special classes damaged their self esteem too much. At no time did the CTA representative ever concede that social promotion was a bad idea.

In California they have tenure. Just recently the Governator proposed in a proposition that the tenure of the teachers be pushed back to five years instead of two years and the CTA put so much money against it they defeated it. So in California a teacher gets 'tenure" in two years.

Six months ago, former LA mayor Richard Riordan came before the board and explained the "Dance of the Lemons" problem. 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.

As for testing, before the tests never had any consequences. They are every few years, so you don't know which teacher is responsible for the lack of learning, and they are just for "information gathering purposes". As I said, they just recently instituted the exit exam from High School in California (some brave Democrats were willing to ignore the threats from the CTA and some paid the price) and it has already started to work wonders. The CTA fought it tooth and nail and still is pushing for its repeal. .

The answer to the problem is simple. You test the kids at the end of each and every year. If a certain teacher isn't able to get their students to improve their tests scores consistently year after year, you move them to another location where it should be easier (more affluent school etc), and if they still can't do it you let them go. You offer bonuses to teachers that are willing to take on the toughest classes. And if they succeed where others failed you give them even higher bonuses.

You do the same things with principles. Many experts before the board, many from districts in other states that have tried this system, say the system works wonders. Some former general came up with it and used it in the state of Washington and more districts have been adopting it. But the CTA won't hear of it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have been put on a board by the Governator that deals directly with this issue.


You do the same things with principles.

I weep for the future of California education.

(hint: you keep spelling principal incorrectly)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
"most"? You also do not know what you are talking about.

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".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I weep for the future of California education.

(hint: you keep spelling principal incorrectly)

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