Posting Towards Gomorrah

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
In California we had a move to smaller class sizes. We had a Republican governor (Wilson) who pushed for a limit of thirty students up to the seventh grade. That was pushed through. The idea was to limit all classes in California to thirty students - in other words move the rule up to Junior High School and High School) but the new Democrat governor (Davis) decided not to push it through the upper grades. They just decided to increase spending (which they did dramatically) but let the bureaucracy decide what was best, and so the class reduction effort was stopped. So now in California elementary class sizes are limited to thirty but not so in Junior High and High School.

Of course the increase funding didn't improve anything. The new Republican governor, the Governator, tried to push tenuring of public school teachers back to four years from two years and the teachers association put together a huge war chest and defeated his efforts.

In California the single biggest block to good education reform is the California Teachers Association and their Democrat allies.

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.)

I think that one has to step back for a moment and consider what each side's objections really are. 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.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you really read what it said? They agree with "fair testing" but not just testing. And they complain about the "testing" industry. Them taking credit for the current testing system is like Clinton taking credit for welfare reform. They have fought standardized testing every step of the way but when public opinion has become so overwhelming they have buckled just as much as they have to, and then try to amend any testing bill to death.

As they point out on the web page, only twenty nine percent of Californians think the current testing system is adequate but the CTAs huge bank account (which California Teachers are forced to pay into) has been used to thwart expansion of standardized teaching every step of the way.

I don't agree with all their positions, but what they say on their web site is a far cry from being "against any testing."

I think the testing industry criticisms may be well placed. As is the need to recognize language barriers in testing (although that doesn't mean that tests for graduation purposes should be in other languages).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Your response did not defend what the teachers assocition does, but to say, well the Republicans do bad stuff also. The problem with you attempt at irony and humor, is that it is debatable whether or not what you say is true (and really is an accusation to general to even support) but I stated a simple fact:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
They why does the California Teachers Association fight every attempt at standarized testing? Why do they support social promotion? What do they not want test to see if you can gradutate from High school?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is irrefutable -- even un-debatable -- fact, does that mean that if I look on the California Teachers' Association website, it will say that CTA opposes all standardized testing and supports social promotion?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think this is an excellent point. Schools ought to teach what kids need to know, and tests ought to measure what kids need to know, but schools ought not teach what tests measure.

I'm not sure I understand this. Is it going to be on the test?

[Spanky]

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.

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.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
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.

You're trying to convince Spanky that (his concept of) free market economics is not applicable to solve any problem?

Good luck with that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If this is irrefutable -- even un-debatable -- fact, does that mean that if I look on the California Teachers' Association website, it will say that CTA opposes all standardized testing and supports social promotion?

They have put money against, and lobbying efforst against every bill that has proposed in increase in standardized testing or an end to social promotion. In negotiating conferences they don't even hide their support for social promotion. They say what the voters do not understand is that students that are held back become a major disruption in class. In other words, older students held back make it harder to teach the other kids. Therefore, kids need to stay with their age group no matter what.

They also argue, that in the inner city schools, that teaching Junior High School and High School kids reading and writing is not an option. If they haven't learned it by then, then they won't. Expecting the teachers to teach something to kids this age in the inner city is unrealistic. They see their job as merely keeping the kids of the streets and out of trouble. This is the "reality" the public doesn't understand.

Like most special interest groups, to the public they spin their arguments differently, but behind closed doors this is what they argue. You saw this with the proposition that would increase the tenure for teachers from two years to four years. They made it sound like all sorts of good teachers were going to get fired. They put up thirty million to defeat that initiative. That money came from mandatory dues extracted from teachers salaries, which you pay for. So in othe words, you paid, with your tax dollars, the effort to defeat that initiative.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I would suggest that one reason that teachers' unions seem to have so much influence is that educational policy is hard, abstruse stuff, and that people who care in the abstract about the issue have a hard time figuring out how to translate their interest into political action. I would vote for political candidates who were going to improve the schools, but I don't think they (a) know how to do it, and (b) know how to sell that in a political campaign.

This leaves the field wide open for the unions to assert their own self-interest.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would suggest that one reason that teachers' unions seem to have so much influence is that educational policy is hard, abstruse stuff, and that people who care in the abstract about the issue have a hard time figuring out how to translate their interest into political action. I would vote for political candidates who were going to improve the schools, but I don't think they (a) know how to do it, and (b) know how to sell that in a political campaign.

You are discounting, of course, the value of the Spanky Third Way Coalition, a motley crew of California politicians gathered to save the day. They may or may not be registered Republicans, but they sure as shit aren't Democrats or unionists.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
In California the single biggest block to good education reform is the California Teachers Association and their Democrat allies.

Ah, Democrats.

When we are not busy committing traitorous acts and supporting terrorism, we are gleefully wrecking the public school system.

On Fridays we get together for a circle-jerk over an image of the Virgin Mary.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ah, Democrats.

When we are not busy committing traitorous acts and supporting terrorism, we are gleefully wrecking the public school system.

On Fridays we get together for a circle-jerk over an image of the Virgin Mary.

At least the Gore girls attend on Fridays.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You are discounting, of course, the value of the Spanky Third Way Coalition, a motley crew of California politicians gathered to save the day. They may or may not be registered Republicans, but they sure as shit aren't Democrats or unionists.

yes all six of us.

[Spanky]

Ty - sometimes you are just cruel. First I say:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you response is:

I would suggest that one reason that teachers' unions seem to have so much influence is that educational policy is hard, abstruse stuff, and that people who care in the abstract about the issue have a hard time figuring out how to translate their interest into political action. I would vote for political candidates who were going to improve the schools, but I don't think they (a) know how to do it, and (b) know how to sell that in a political campaign.

This leaves the field wide open for the unions to assert their own self-interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You respond to my question of why smaller class size has no support but then you don't answer the question. I think you are going to clear up this baffling mystery and then you don't.

You would think the Teacher's Unions would want smaller class sizes. Wouldn't you? If you were a teacher wouldn't you want less students? And why would Republicans be against small class sizes? Republicans are always pushing for more money to go to the classroom and not the bueracracy. What better way to make sure money is spent on the class room than forcing smaller class sizes? This seemed something obvious everyone could agree on, and for a while they did.

So why did everyone get together and push through small class sizes for elementary schools but then let it go for Junior High and High School? Could it really be what they told me that some stupid study showed it didn't help and they all dropped? Are there more sinister forces at work? Why did this happen Ty? Why Ty Why?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Ah, Democrats.

When we are not busy committing traitorous acts and supporting terrorism, we are gleefully wrecking the public school system.

On Fridays we get together for a circle-jerk over an image of the Virgin Mary.

You forgot blaming the Zionists for global warming and trans-fats

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forgot blaming the Zionists for global warming and trans-fats

Man, I hate running into fats in transit. Their flab pours over the armrest and into my chair.