Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a partner in Law Firm just stopped doing his or her job or starting pissing off all the clients, how long do you think they would last?

Teachers in LA that don't do their job, and anger the parents, keep their jobs. They just get moved to other schools?

How about firing the administrators that keep shuffling these teachers around then?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not if they agree to work day-to-day under the terms of the old contract until there's a new one. Don't be obtuse.

There isa detrimental reliance and certainly damages. Teh students should sue as third party beneficiaries.

I went back and looked at an engagement contract my firm has with an ongoing client I do a lot of work for. The engagement is general, "such projects as from time to time the client may engage the firm in", which doesn't necessarily specificy that any one project has to be worked on to completion, and the fee section says that the hourly rates are subject to increase upon from time to time upon notice. So again, in my hypo, if I constructuvely bail on a deal by doubling my rates right before closing and the consequential result is the client defaults and incurs material damages, is there likely malpractice?

In the doctor scenario, have you had surgery and signed an engagement contract? What terms did it specify? I have seen waivers and acknowledgments, not engagements. So when a doctor walks and patient dies, malpractice?

Why shouldn't teachers be held to like ehtical duties if they claim to be "professionals"? In reality, its becaise they are not. They are mindless bureaucratic union hacks.

Why do you hate the children so that you inflict these people upon them?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
As always, I should shut up .

\

IN the spirit of bipartisanship, I can agree with this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
There isa detrimental reliance and certainly damages. Teh students should sue as third party beneficiaries.

I went back and looked at an engagement contract my firm has with an ongoing client I do a lot of work for. The engagement is general, "such projects as from time to time the client may engage the firm in", which doesn't necessarily specificy that any one project has to be worked on to completion, and the fee section says that the hourly rates are subject to increase upon from time to time upon notice. So again, in my hypo, if I constructuvely bail on a deal by doubling my rates right before closing and the consequential result is the client defaults and incurs material damages, is there likely malpractice?

In the doctor scenario, have you had surgery and signed an engagement contract? What terms did it specify? I have seen waivers and acknowledgments, not engagements. So when a doctor walks and patient dies, malpractice?

Why shouldn't teachers be held to like ehtical duties if they claim to be "professionals"? In reality, its becaise they are not. They are mindless bureaucratic union hacks.

Why do you hate the children so that you inflict these people upon them?

It's odd that you want to pretend that teachers are like lawyers or doctors in that you say their job is so essentially that they can't walk away -- apparently leaving a student untaught for a day is like leaving a deal undone or a heart unoperated upon -- but I can't believe that you think teachers should be paid anything like lawyers or doctors.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
As always, I should shut up and let Sidd (and SAM) say what I am trying to say far more effectively.

you can post. it's cool. but WTW, if you are going to call spanky out for spelling errors you should pass your own post through a Spellcheck IYKWIM.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's odd that you want to pretend that teachers are like lawyers or doctors in that you say their job is so essentially that they can't walk away -- apparently leaving a student untaught for a day is like leaving a deal undone or a heart unoperated upon -- but I can't believe that you think teachers should be paid anything like lawyers or doctors.

lots of lawyers make about as much as teachers. you just don't cross paths with this lower strata.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
lots of lawyers make about as much as teachers. you just don't cross paths with this lower strata.

I've been told that the biggest employer of lawyers in the country is the Postal Service. Course, they're not all working as lawyers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's odd that you want to pretend that teachers are like lawyers or doctors in that you say their job is so essentially that they can't walk away -- apparently leaving a student untaught for a day is like leaving a deal undone or a heart unoperated upon -- but I can't believe that you think teachers should be paid anything like lawyers or doctors.

Are Teachers underpaid?

Is $34.06 an hour underpaid?????

Who, on average, is better paid -- public school teachers or architects? How about teachers or economists? You might be surprised to learn that public school teachers are better paid than these and many other professionals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, public school teachers earned $34.06 per hour in 2005, 36% more than the hourly wage of the average white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty or technical worker.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
lots of lawyers make about as much as teachers. you just don't cross paths with this lower strata.

This is just New Jersey (numbers are medians, I think):

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is typical of your argument style. You snarl a lot, you make categorical statements, you demonize your favorite targets ("liberals", "unions", "the Democrat party"), and you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge or even minimal research.

The question is not whether social promotion is "good." The question is whether it is better than the alternative. The alternative is holding kids back, aka retention. Lots of schools have had greater problems with retention than they had with social promotion, and they have switched back and forth for that reason.

You act as if this is purely black-and-white, and that only people who are evil and stupid (i.e., your definition of "liberal") could possibly disagree with you. Yet two minutes on Google will pull for you a host of sources that identify the difficulties with retention, including difficulties encountered in school systems that eliminated social promotion. Those difficulties include increased drop-out rates and increased major behavioral problems with the kids held back.

The reality is that neither of these all-or-nothing approaches is particularly effective, and what you need is intervention and tutoring that leads to kids being promoted AND to their being ready for promotion. But this sort of ideological diatribe, blame-the-liberals/unions snarling, only indicates views that are driven not by information or experience but by political sentiment.

You have this all wrong. Your defense of the Teachers Unions is based on ideological bias. I have seen lots of hearings on social promotion, and I still can't believe anyone ever thought it was a good idea. I am perfectly willing to criticize my own party, or some standard conservative sentiments when they are wrong (like no birth control) but this is one area where liberals and the Teachers Unions have really screwed up.

Social promotion was never a good idea. Yes there are problems when you keep kids back, but the solution is not to pretend they don't have a problem. The idea is so absurd. Social problem is not the lesser of two evils; it is the worse of two evils. Once the student is behind in a social promotion system they can never catch up. Think about it. Once they are in a class that is over their head, they won't learn a thing, and then the only thing to do is to just keep promoting them because the window of opportunity for them to learn has been closed.

If you don't learn Algebra 1, and you are put into Algebra 2 there is no chance you will ever learn the more complicated subject. Education at this level (basic math, English and reading) builds on itself. Once a kid is socially promoted that is it, they can never learn because they will never again be in a class that is taught at their level. They will be lost for the rest of their academic career. And this is exactly what has happened repeated hundreds of thousands of time in California schools. Social Promotion is the exact reason why so my kids graduate from California High Schools that can't read (or at least did before the exit exam was instituted). A whole generation was lost to social promotion in California. It was a social experiment that had devastating effects.

Social promotion was a new idea that was brought in the last thirty years and conservative elements always fought it. From the get go many people saw how stupid it was, and therefore many states and schools never adopted it. Unfortunately many districts in the Golden State did adopt it and it has been a disaster.

Yet the Teachers Unions still defends it. Even Adder admits that most experts realize it was a bad idea. But not the teachers unions in California.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have this all wrong. Your defense of the Teachers Unions is based on ideological bias. I have seen lots of hearings on social promotion, and I still can't believe anyone ever thought it was a good idea. I am perfectly willing to criticize my own party, or some standard conservative sentiments when they are wrong (like no birth control) but this is one area where liberals and the Teachers Unions have really screwed up.

Social promotion was never a good idea. Yes there are problems when you keep kids back, but the solution is not to pretend they don't have a problem. The idea is so absurd. Social problem is not the lesser of two evils; it is the worse of two evils. Once the student is behind in a social promotion system they can never catch up. Think about it. Once they are in a class that is over their head, they won't learn a thing, and then the only thing to do is to just keep promoting them because the window of opportunity for them to learn has been closed.

If you don't learn Algebra 1, and you are put into Algebra 2 there is no chance you will ever learn the more complicated subject. Education at this level (basic math, English and reading) builds on itself. Once a kid is socially promoted that is it, they can never learn because they will never again be in a class that is taught at their level. They will be lost for the rest of their academic career. And this is exactly what has happened repeated hundreds of thousands of time in California schools. Social Promotion is the exact reason why so my kids graduate from California High Schools that can't read (or at least did before the exit exam was instituted). A whole generation was lost to social promotion in California. It was a social experiment that had devastating effects.

Social promotion was a new idea that was brought in the last thirty years and conservative elements always fought it. From the get go many people saw how stupid it was, and therefore many states and schools never adopted it. Unfortunately many districts in the Golden State did adopt it and it has been a disaster.

Yet the Teachers Unions still defends it. Even Adder admits that most experts realize it was a bad idea. But not the teachers unions in California.

is it ironic that Adder promotes social promotion because it protects a child ego against charges of stupidity, then a sentence later mocks you and me for spelling words wrong?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
No. I responded about your spelling for two reasons. First, there is no point in talking to you about this, as you have simply accepted that teachers unions are bad (using your usual circular logic that they are the problem because they don't agree with your prescriptions).

I have pointed out what I think the problems are; social promotion, tenure and lack of testing. The Teachers Unions protect all three failed programs. How is that circular logic? I have personally witnessed the Teachers Unions in action. I have heard them come before my board, and Democrat Assembly members and State Senators have told me how they threaten them. I am speaking from personal or at least first hand information.

Originally posted by 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.

So you admit the idea of tenure for K-12 is absurd. So why do you defend the Teachers Unions for spending so much money and political capital to defend tenure.

Do you live in California? You keep saying I don't know what we are talking about but I have kept to discussing California which is a subject I know about. Do you? I have heard about the problems with firing a Los Angeles School Teacher. Do you think I made the Dance of Lemons up? Yes they can get fired, but not for failing to teach the students.

Originally posted by Adder
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.

Document their failure? How can you when there is no testing? And was this in California? They should be doing more than just controlling their class, they should be teaching. In the "Dance of the Lemons" testimony I heard they had teachers where every parent in their class signed a document saying the teacher was incompetent. They were simply transferred. In what case a teacher had been transferred ten times in twelve years because of parent complaints yet they couldn’t fire her.

Originally posted by Adder You want to fire them more easily. The teachers, not surprisingly, don't really want to volunteer to be more subject to the whims of the just as likely to be incompetence principals and administrators. You may think that it is in the public interest to weaken their job protections, but it is absolute bullshit to condemn teachers for not agreeing with you.

They all should be subject to firing for not teaching. And I do condemn them for circling the wagons around incompetent teachers. Why shouldn't I? I don’t mind them asking for more money, or for health care benefits, or pensions, but not when they argue to protect incompetence. My nephew got a job teaching at a LA unified School District. My college dorm mate was his principle. He hired him. My nephew partied all the time, missed class, screwed around and my friend used to call me to tell me to straighten out my nephew. I asked him why he didn't fire my nephew and his answer was "he couldn't".

Originally posted by Adder 2. Testing. The main effect of more standardized testing is more standardized education. That may be a good thing, or it may not be. If you assume that all students will be better served by spending the millions that it costs develop, implement and administer the tests, then fine. Some people think that rather than more testing, that money could be spent on smaller class sizes and greater diversity on education opportunities (music, arts, vocational ed, etc).

You are so out of it, it is painful. THE PROBLEM IS THAT STUDENTS ARE NOT LEARNING TO READ AND WRITE NOR DO BASIC MATH. Teach music? Are you kidding? Standardized tests are great because they test a standardized education which is exactly what they kids are not getting. Learning to read and write is standardized. You make it sound like these kids are learning to read and write but we are restricting their knowledge of literature and philosophy. It is not hard to come up with a test that tests for basic reading and writing. And to pass those tests you have to learn to read and write. Once ninety percent of the graduates from the Public Schools can read and write then we can talk about expanding the education.

Originally posted by Adder But again, you really seem to like testing because it gives you more data that you can use to identify those evil bad teachers that you hate. Given what you want to do with the test (i.e. fire teachers) it is again hardly surprising that teachers would really want to support you.

In any profession there are certain people that can't do it. You always have to weed out the dead wood. And a bad teacher can really screw up a kid’s education. I just can't believe that you think getting rid of teachers that can't teach is a bad thing. Why would you want a teacher that consistently does not teach their students anything. do you really care about the students so little. And why should competent teachers want to protect incompetent teachers? Why wouldn't you want to find out which teachers are not teaching, and which ones that are doing a good job? Why wouldn't you want to reward competence and punish incompetence?

Originally posted by Adder Under the system you describe, a teacher who gets a bad draw of student in even a single year (meaning students a class that is on average worse than others, or maybe just one that doesn't respond well to that teacher) would have his/her career hindered (i.e. transferred elsewhere). This is like suggesting that associates should be removed from firms for not getting along with a single partner.

You are intentionally ignoring what I said. You do it over a couple of years. If a teacher goes three years in a row not teaching their students, then you transfer them, just to make sure that it wasn't where they are located. Like I said, you transfer them to an easy school (one in a more affluent neighborhood). You give bonuses to the ones that volunteer for the tough schools, and you give even bigger bonuses to teachers that succeed where other failed. How could anyone possibly have a problem with that?

Originally posted by Adder 3. Social promotion. Again, social promotion makes no sense if (1) confidence plays no role in acheivement and (2) all children develop at the same rate if only they are taught well. Both are demonstrable false. Especially for the primary years, (1) can be very important and very fragile, which is why social promotion exists in the first space.

I won’t stoop to your level and comment on your spelling but see my post to Sidd on this subject. .

Originally posted by Adder Let's take an example. Maybe one second grader, let's call him Spanky, is a little behind his classmates. He is progressing, but is maybe a month or two behind. It isn't that Spanky isn't smart, it isn't that Spanky has been poorly tauht, instead it is just that Spanky late bloomer. At the end of the year, we can either hold Spanky back, and impliedly tell him he is stupid and inadequate, or we can let him go to third grade and give him a little extra help until he catches up.

Surely you agree that there is a very careful judgment involved in which option will best serve Spanky. And surely you think that maybe people who actually teach children might have something meaningful to say about each individual decision.

That said, of course it can go to far. You would expect less educational value in social promotion for older kids, for example, but you can't seriously suggest that there is anything absolute to be said.

Promoting students who are not learning is absolutely bad. Give them a chance to make it up in Summer School. If they are not that far behind give them tutoring. But if they learned absolutely nothing, hold them back. If they are a disruption, then put them in a special class.

Originally posted by Adder 4. Teachers don't think that their job is to teach. Maybe in California (although I REALLY doubt it), but I can tell you that I know MANY teachers. Some of them are great, so of them I think are less great. Every single one of them thinks there job is to help children learn. That fact that you would question again tell me that your analysis of these issues goes no further than republican party dogma.

This is not Republican dogma. I listened to a teacher tell me that in her school they simply see their job as keeping them out of trouble. Yes there are good teachers and bad teachers. The problem is, when good teachers are not rewarding, and bad teachers are not weeded out, you discourage the good teachers and you encourage the bad ones. You need a merit system. And in order to have a merit system, you need to know which ones are doing their jobs. And the only way I can see figuring out who is doing a good job is by testing the students. Otherwise you just find out who the popular teachers are, not necessarily the ones that are doing their jobs.

__________

Originally posted by Adder Finally, I know this is shocking, but some people - maybe even people who , you know, actually work with children and pay attention to education policy - who might have other ideas.

But never you mind. You just keep spouting the party line. Everything esle has been tried and failed, and you, as usual, have a monopoly on truth. Even though you ignore innumerable other challenges to quality education.

I will save my rant on the myth of the universal failure of American schools for another day. But it will suffice for now to repeat that Hank is wrong to suggest that "most" schools are equivalent to failing businesses.

I have sat through listening to many teachers and education experts talk about education. I am not spouting Republican dogma. I am just saying stuff that runs contrary to the liberal dogma you subscribe to. The conclusion I have reached is the problem are social promotion, lack of testing, and an inability to get rid of bad eggs.

etft -- T.S.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
How many teachers have your kids had who just stopped doing his or her job?

I spend more hours arguing with teachers with whom I disagree than I do arguing with you. I have considerably more respect for the sincerity and the general intellectual capacity of the average teacher.

A lot of teachers do an amazing job. But there are also a lot of teachers that shouldn't be teaching and unfortunately most of them end up in schools with poor students where the parents don't complain. What do you have against a system that figures out who the good teachers are, and rewards them, and find out who the bad teachers are and weeds them out?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
How about firing the administrators that keep shuffling these teachers around then?

What good would that do. The administrators keep shuffling them around because they can't fire them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You've pointed out a few of the problems with Spanky's anecdote-driven theories. But there are others.

It turns out that there are some public school rankings on the Internets. And while the free stuff is a little dated, they do not show anything like the pattern that Spanky's theories would predict.

One random example -- in 1999, SF's Lowell HS was ranked 2nd in the state. Several elementary schools in LA appear in the top 50 (more than from such Republican-run, Union-free paradises like Fresno).

Not surprisingly, the best school districts are in the Silicon Valley, where parents are deeply involved and deeply interested in education.

I'd be interested to see more recent data but I'm not going to pay for it. Presumably, Spanky's reviewed it all and knows that the story radically changed, that in the last several years R-run districts are dominant, and can cite some other studies that factor in the issues you define (i.e. -- it's a little cheaper to run a school in Palo Alto where you don't have to provide breakfast to students).

I mean, Spanky must have that kind of support for his arguments? Because he doesn't just point out the bad things that teachers' unions do -- there certainly are some bad things, and it would be refreshing to see a discussion of those without all the baggage attached. But Spanky ties them to the general downfall of western civilization -- and such sweeping statements must have support -- right?

Sometimes the solutions to policy problems are not easy. The solutions are complicated and there is no easy fix. Sometimes the solution is pretty obvious, but there is a strong special interest group that prevents the obvious solution from being implemented. This is true of prison reform in California. The Prison Guards in California run amuck in our prisons but because of the powerful prison guard lobby, no one does anything about it. If you propose reform, you are labeled soft on crime, and they put tons of money to defeat you in your next election. In education in California it is the same situation. The push towards the end of social promotion, rewarding good teachers and getting rid of bad ones, and testing has worked in many districts. However, the CTA is against any of those changes and they are very powerful. Just like the powerful prison guard union, they put money against, and turn out precinct walkers by the thousands, against any candidate that proposes these reforms.

Of course the liberals on this board will believe me about the prison guards, but because of their ideological bias, can't believe the same is true of the teachers union.