Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I did both, and I must admit - I learned a hell of a lot more in public than private school. I also did a brief stint in Catholic school. That's an offensive joke. Those things should be fucking closed. They actually work toward making your kid ignorant.

I agree with Spanky. They should make teachers accountable on a bonus system. A good teacher ought to be paid a shitload; the sort who hide in the job to get maximum benefits without stress should be fired. I can think no person more appalling than one who'd waste children's formative years phoning in a job because he's too fucking lazy, gutless and creative to make it in the private sector.

Everybopdy, in every job, should be reviewed yearly and compensated based on production. Why any sector of our society - govt or private - escapes that necessary weeding process is beyond me. How the hell else shall we evolve? I have to fight for money every day. Make the goddamned state employees and teachers do the same. If they can't make it, good. More money for everyone who can.

Surely no one is against this in principle, except possibly the teachers unions. But how do you make it work? And, as a practical matter, don't you think that the reason teachers unions have been able to bargain for insulation from accountability is that when the negotiations come around, the school districts often lack money and have to give up something else? Let's face it -- one of the reasons to work for an employer that pays less is that you get something else out of the deal, like job security.

[Gattigap]

Fiscal conservatives, take note: No longer content with teenagers, Your Federal Dollars are now being spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs for grown adults.

• Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children... "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

So. Slave? The Great Man is telling you, put that thing away. Spanky? C'mon, you can try some wimpy excuse that you're older than 29, but let's be honest -- it's only a matter of time before Wade Horn has your demographic in his sights as well. Your GOP wants you to stop screwing anything until you finally decide to pop the question to Paigow. After all, they know what's best.

Gattigap

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Surely no one is against this in principle, except possibly the teachers unions. But how do you make it work? And, as a practical matter, don't you think that the reason teachers unions have been able to bargain for insulation from accountability is that when the negotiations come around, the school districts often lack money and have to give up something else? Let's face it -- one of the reasons to work for an employer that pays less is that you get something else out of the deal, like job security.

I'm not sure how it works in other states, but in Ohio the teacher tenure system is state law (ORC 3319.16 - termination of teacher), not what is negotiated between the union (usually OFT or OEA) and the individual school district.

aV

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm with you so far, although I think the last one is impossible for many subjects, and/or ends up emphasizing tested/testable subjects over untested ones.

They seem to come up with AP tests for every conceivable subject. Why not just come up with lower level AP tests. In any event right now students are graduating that can't read or write and it is very easy to come up with tests for that.

Originally posted by baltassoc
Not going to happen in our lifetime.

right now in California they passed a law that you have to pass an exit exam to get your H.S. Diploma. Teacher's Unions fought it every step of the way. Caused huge turmoil at first but now students are going back to learn the subjects that would have otherwise skated by. In addition, students who never cared about learning before are studying so they can pass the exam and go through graduation.

Originally posted by baltassoc Both of these need to be limited somewhat to account for the fact that 20 students (even 30) is too small a sample size. Also, destruction of tenure needs to be limited to this cause. Maybe a better answer is extending the tenure decision to more like university-like levels - 6 to 8 years.

With annual test it will become very obvious which teachers can teach and which can't. And why have tenure at all? What if a tenured teacher gets a bad attitude and just gives up. Why shouldn't you be able to get rid of them? There is not tenure anywhere else why have it in education. It is a stupid idea.

Originally posted by baltassoc I’m good with this, but we have to make sure we are paying enough to make it attractive to new candidates - same with the teachers. It's all well and good to talk about firing people for incompetence, but it is much harder to achieve in an environment where there is already a labor shortage. I'm sure availability of teachers varies wildly by subject and region.

The changing the spending from 67% to 70% will release a lot of fund for teachers. But in the end you will just have to pay for it. Many legislators, who right now don't want to spend more money on education because it is just being thrown down the teachers union's rat hole, will be more willing to pay for stuff if they know bad teachers are being fired and bonuses are being paid to good teachers.

Originally posted by baltassoc No on the no public funds, but the second doesn't seem unreasonable, to me at least. The no public funds is problematic because frankly, who else is going to lobby for strong schools than educators (distinct from your hated union)?

You can't see a problem with using public funds for lobbying? Spending taxpayer’s money to convince taxpayers how their money should be spent? That is Orwellian. The problem with educators is that they lobby to protect their jobs, not to help the students.

The only people that truly represent the student's interest are the parents.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I suspect that if you could actually come up with the funds to get class sizes down below 20, you'd be able to get many of the remaining points (though I don't think you'll completely revise the country's labor laws and the union certification process, but other than that...)

You don't appreciate the power of the Teacher's Unions. They would fight these tooth and nail every step of the way.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy But after NCLB, with Bush putting his funding requests at about 60% of the amount he baked into law in NCLB, why should anyone trust a Republican funding plan? However well intentioned, NCLB has become the poster-child for unfunded mandates.

Education and education funding is a state issue.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Add this to (5): And if you don't get that score, you immediately proceed into remedial classes for the summer, and get special tutoring during the year. We don't just throw you back into the class that failed to teach you anything last year.

That is a good idea. And you can take the test as many times as you want during the summer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How do you work around the fact that someone has to teach the kids who get no support from home and who may not want to learn?

You have to admit some teachers will be better at this than others. There is more than one class in each state with students like this. So you can compare how different teachers do in these tough classes. The teachers that are able to get the best results out of these troubled classes stay, and the ones that can't get moved to an easier class. The teachers that are able to actually get the toughest classes to learn get the biggest bonuses.

You put your best teachers in the toughest situations and you reward them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
OK, I'm game. Why?

Because it's a GOP state and Webb has run an evil campaign.

As Ty said, Allen wins, but any shot he ever had for POTUS is now dead in the water.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky


Education and education funding is a state issue.

Wow. I call Bullshit bigtime here.

Section 2 of what was supposed to be Bush's big program as the Education President provided for $25 billion in funding last year for NCLB. Bush's proposed appropriation under the bill last year was $16 billion, and this is one of the reasons the Republicans have nothing (Nadda, Jack Shit, Zero) to run on that resonates with the American People. They can't raise education as an issue, because they came up with a program, got it passed, and then abandoned it.

And the whole point of NCLB and of your cherished tests was and is to federalize curriculum and education as an issue. It's the Rs who are making it thus - I'd love to see curriculum under LOCAL (not even state) control, but testing stands in the way.

[SlaveNoMore]

Is there a contest each year to determine which Senator from Massachussets is the bigger embarrassment to the country?

Who advises John Kerry? Anyone?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How do you work around the fact that someone has to teach the kids who get no support from home and who may not want to learn? I can flee my company like a rat from a sinking ship if it seems like it's sinking, and that's all part of the market -- companies should be allowed to fail.* But it seems like we have a social value that says that all kids have to be provided with education up to a certain point. Do we want the crappiest, most unmotivated teachers teaching those kids?

*bwahahahahahaha.

No, of course not. I think we can assess teachers and reward those who do a good job the same way we assess and reward middle managers, whose performance is just as hard to quantify.

Teachers in dangerous, lousy school districts should get a special form of hazardous duty pay, and a different incentive system which allows them to make bonuses at lower goals, since that's the reality of the situation. The market demands we pay top dollar to those people, and they deserve it. We should allot our tax dollars in that direction above all else, since that's the real engine of our future prosperity, and would go far further toward social parity the Democrats seem to want than their idiot do-gooder programs which blow 70% of every dollar on administration costs for fattened bureaucrats.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Surely no one is against this in principle, except possibly the teachers unions. But how do you make it work? And, as a practical matter, don't you think that the reason teachers unions have been able to bargain for insulation from accountability is that when the negotiations come around, the school districts often lack money and have to give up something else? Let's face it -- one of the reasons to work for an employer that pays less is that you get something else out of the deal, like job security.

No - that is not the problem. The problem is that the Teacher's Unions are just too powerful. This is the government. You don't need to negotiate with unions. You just pass laws and they have to suck it up. The teachers Unions know this. The pay for the legislators with your tax dollars and then the legislators they pay for decide how they are treated. In California the only time there is real negotiation with the teacher's union is when a Republican Governor threatens to veto an education bill.

If you pass the laws then the teachers will have to abide. If they go on strike you fire the teachers that don't show up. Government, unlike businesses, really don't need to negotiate with unions. They have the power of making laws.

If you take on the teacher's union you are accused of being against education. The Governator tried to get a law past the legislator changing tenure in California from two years to four years and the teacher unions stopped it. He then put it in a proposition and the teachers unions spent millions of dollars spreading mininformation (why is Arnold attacking our teachers?) to defeat it and they did.

Almost everything I just proposed that most people agreed on, has been floated out in California and been summarily quashed by the Teacher's Unions. You want to fix education, all you need to do is make it illegal for teachers to unionize.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
No - that is not the problem. The problem is that the Teacher's Unions are just too powerful. This is the government. You don't need to negotiate with unions. You just pass laws and they have to suck it up. The teachers Unions know this. The pay for the legislators with your tax dollars and then the legislators they pay for decide how they are treated. In California the only time there is real negotiation with the teacher's union is when a Republican Governor threatens to veto an education bill.

If you pass the laws then the teachers will have to abide. If they go on strike you fire the teachers that don't show up. Government, unlike businesses, really don't need to negotiate with unions. They have the power of making laws.

If you take on the teacher's union you are accused of being against education. The Governator tried to get a law past the legislator changing tenure in California from two years to four years and the teacher unions stopped it. He then put it in a proposition and the teachers unions spent millions of dollars spreading mininformation (why is Arnold attacking our teachers?) to defeat it and they did.

Almost everything I just proposed that most people agreed on, has been floated out in California and been summarily quashed by the Teacher's Unions. You want to fix education, all you need to do is make it illegal for teachers to unionize.

Uh, we don't have teacher's unions in Texas of any particular clout, and there's still a problem.

ETA: stuff happens over their objection all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Wow. I call Bullshit bigtime here.

You would. However, the federal government provides like three percent of the money spent on education in this country. States spend the money and set priorities. The federal government is a minor player.

And what is wrong with national testing? Isn't that a good thing? No child left behind is about reading and writing. If local districts wanted to change the curriculum, the only option would be to not teach reading and writing.

What could possibly be wrong with the Federal government wanting schools to teach reading and writing. Wouldn't this be good on its own even without the funding? Isn't the funding just frosting on the cake?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Surely no one is against this in principle, except possibly the teachers unions. But how do you make it work? And, as a practical matter, don't you think that the reason teachers unions have been able to bargain for insulation from accountability is that when the negotiations come around, the school districts often lack money and have to give up something else? Let's face it -- one of the reasons to work for an employer that pays less is that you get something else out of the deal, like job security.

Job security creates lazy people. Lazy people do shitty jobs. Hence, the only answer remains putting these people in job jeopardy. We should all have to handle the fear of the ax. How else are people going to hone their talents? I think if you set up a system where some of the teachers could get paid serious cash, and mangement was encouraged to run a tight, economical ship, you'd see some wonderful teachers. And very happy ones. What could be better? Certainly, its better than this socialist lockstep system that encourages those who come into the system giving a shit and trying to do a good job into phoning it in after a few years.

You can't get peak performance out of anyone who hasn't got an incentive. How many firms have people on this boatrd fucked over because they knew exactly where they could stop and still get the max bonus?