Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I assumed you meant 1984-ish, not Animal Farm. But since people also make allusions to how poor working people are becoming, I left open the possibility you meant in the Keep the Aspidistra Flying sense.

When i think of the future I see more the movie Brazil- the technology is more up to date, there are terrorists bombing, intrusive government ("suspects will now be charged for their interrogations") and general bureacratic incompetance.

Nononono, you should know this happened the last time a woman ventured to the PB as well. Everyone started trying to impress her. Hank's just finished reading up everything he could find on Orwell -- not just the Wikipedia entry for Orwell himself, but a bunch of the links, too.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Martha Wong losing her pants would be the "little bit nasty" part here?

I nearly called the campaign headquarters yesterday to ask whether or not Martha Wong would consider sponsoring a bill that would repeal the sex toy law given the Supreme Court's recent sad and wrong refusal to get involved in such things.

I wish I'd thought to show up to one of the debates to ask both candidates that question. There are a lot of sex shops in our district.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
In order for Bush's appointments to get through the Republicans need to control the Senate.

That depends on who he appoints (or nominates, or whatever). It's not like there are only ever appointments when one party has Total Power.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I take it from these statements the teachers who work for you gave you records of the testing results of their classes from their teaching days? Is not, how can you assert they were good teachers?

I am just assuming. But of course I can't know for sure until I have seen test results.

Originally posted by baltassoc I happen to think there are lots of ways of identifying good teachers There are also lots of ways to define a good teacher beyond his ability to teach an immediate subject in such a way that his students can regurgitate it on a multiple choice test.

I disagree. Specially in K-12. It is not that hard to set up tests where preparing for the test will force you to learn to read and write and do basic math. Do you really disagree with that?

This assertion that you can't set up tests to determine if someone is learning to read and write and do basic math is pure bull. And that is the teachers sole job. Full Stop.

When it comes to just plain reading and writing every day in the world is a test. It is pretty easy to figure out someones read and writing ability and making a good test is not that hard.

Originally posted by baltassoc You look at tenure and see a mechanism to keep the lazy employed. I look at tenure and see a millenium-old tradition that protects professional from the whims of stupid people.

There are better ways to protect teachers from the whims of stupid people than tenure. If teachers teach well and their students test well then they can use the good test scores to protect their job. Tenure is never, never, never, used in the private sector because it would make companies uncompetitive. Why would anyone set up a system that protects the incompetant.

How can anyone defend tenure?

Originally posted by baltassoc (I'm suggesting you are stupid; I'm suggesting that the woman who my senior year in high school keep writing to the school board and the local paper demanding the head of my English teacher for daring to teach -- OMG -- 1984 (it has sex in it, you may recall) is stupid. Lest you think this is purely an anti-conservative bias, she also taught the KJV of Genesis in class. In a less conservative town, I could see that causing just as much a stir.)

Again, if the teacher gets high test scores from their students this would not be a problem. According to the rules high test scores would trump any of this B.S.

Originally posted by baltassoc We are both right; tenure does both of these things. We just each find the respective aspects of tenure more important. I'm willing to accept that a few bad apples will get to stay. You're willing to accept that teachers will be subject to academic censorship by wingnuts.

No. There are better ways of protecting Teachers from wingnuts than tenure. That is like letting everyone in the prisons go free just so you don't jail anyone that is innocent. There are better ways to target the solution that don't have so much collateral damage.

Originally posted by baltassoc I happen to think there is a middle ground. I think that lengthening the time before granting tenure to 6 or 8 years would eliminate almost all the bad apples. I'd also be in favor of expanding somewhat the professional negligence type grounds for firing teachers post tenure (and pre-tenure even more). Right now, in most jurisdictions, you have to be caught doing something illegal or just stop coming to work to get fired. I can see a system of low test scores combined with low teacher evaluations leading to dismissal.

Well I agree with you that tenure is a relative term. But I don't know if popular teachers are a good sign of good teachers. Maybe peer review. But I still think test scores are the way to go.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am just assuming. But of course I can't know for sure until I have seen test results.

I don't think this is true. I think you know they were good teachers, and you know that because of your interaction with them. You don't need the test results to tell you that.

...
Well I agree with you that tenure is a relative term. But I don't know if popular teachers are a good sign of good teachers. Maybe peer review. But I still think test scores are the way to go.

I was unclear. I meant peer and administrative review, not student review.

I think that evaluating a teacher takes more than just a test. And there is more to be taught than reading and math (or any other discrete subject). A precurser to that is often teaching people how to learn. And teaching people to love learning.

None of which changes the travesty that a full 50% of the students in America are below average.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I have always said, that is nothing more annoying than someone who is arrogant and ignorant.

Spanky is on a roll, with his second "New Board Motto" of the week. But I tend to agree with Ty.

[eta: On the substance, while expressing no opinion on the personal insults in his post.]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by nononono
In any event, I've nothing to say here except that insulting me and an apparent pathological need to respond to each and every sentence, whether or not you have something germane to add, doesn't strengthen your arguments.

She obviously doesn't understand how we do things over here . . .

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Will anyone on this board recommend that their children enlist in the military, rather than go to college? Why or why not?

Nope, although I would encourage them to become an officer, whether through ROTC or a service academy, if they show an interest.

The reasons why are self-evident. I would, however, be proud of either of my children for making that choice and sticking with it (if I was unable to talk them out of it).

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've asked myself, why are so many bottom dwellers from their side allowed to stay- why don't the Dems clean their own house and run off some of the poorer examples? Truly, if my issues were being argued as poorly as most of what the Dems put up here, we would have a PM counsel with the substandard poster, and ask him to simply lurk.

Poor party disclipline. :therock:

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't think this is true. I think you know they were good teachers, and you know that because of your interaction with them. You don't need the test results to tell you that.

I can make a good guess but you never know until you see the tests. I have been really wrong about employees. I am sure everyone on this board goes through this. They seem great in the interview and then they just suck. I am sure some teachers just don't come off well to other adults but are good at getting students to learn.

Testing may not be perfect, but do you know of another way to determine if the teachers are actually teaching?

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think that evaluating a teacher takes more than just a test. And there is more to be taught than reading and math (or any other discrete subject). A precurser to that is often teaching people how to learn. And teaching people to love learning.

None of which changes the travesty that a full 50% of the students in America are below average.

I disagree in that it would be nice to teach people to love learning, and how to learn, but right now they are not learning. If a teacher can't teach their students to improve their reading, writing and math skills, then nothing else matters. Testing is a pretty simple way to determine that. I can't see any other way of getting rid of bad eggs and demanding better results than testing. Can you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


[eta: On the substance, while expressing no opinion on the personal insults in his post.]

S_A_M

What good is a post without the personal attacks? Otherwise it is just some intellectual diatribe. Ty does his best work when he is really frustrated.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope, although I would encourage them to become an officer, whether through ROTC or a service academy, if they show an interest.

The reasons why are self-evident. I would, however, be proud of either of my children for making that choice and sticking with it (if I was unable to talk them out of it).

S_A_M

I would be proud if one of my children joined the military. Of course I would encourage them to become an officer. I looked into going to the Airforce Academy (because I thought I had great vision). Although my vision is way above average, it turns out I am almost totally colorblind. I would have been lucky to ever see the inside of an airplane.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope, although I would encourage them to become an officer, whether through ROTC or a service academy, if they show an interest.

The reasons why are self-evident. I would, however, be proud of either of my children for making that choice and sticking with it (if I was unable to talk them out of it).

S_A_M

Absent pressing national concern (on the scale of WWII), I would greatly discourage any child from enlisting as a grunt, but if they wanted to do ROTC or West Point, that would be fine. My general view of life as a grunt is that it sucks as badly as just about anything else imaginable.

My suspicion is the little hellions might be more likely, however, to take up with whatever the current equivalent of the Sandinistas is. And I'd be proud of them if they did that as well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I would be proud if one of my children joined the military. Of course I would encourage them to become an officer. I looked into going to the Airforce Academy (because I thought I had great vision). Although my vision is way above average, it turns out I am almost totally colorblind. I would have been lucky to ever see the inside of an airplane.

By your children you mean, "one of the 'models' I've taken under my 'wing'", right?

Does the Military take Serbs, Canadians or Japanese 16 year olds?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Testing may not be perfect, but do you know of another way to determine if the teachers are actually teaching?

Seems to me that you can walk into a classroom and watch them teach.