Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

And then makes spelling mistakes when he mocks me. If you can't win on the facts, make it personal.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The California Teachers Association did not invent tenure.

Nor did it invent the concept of massive severance packages for failed executives, which I would suggest is as embarassing to corporate America as any tenure plan is to a school system.

I agree, but one's not an excuse for the other.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

The root of the problem lies with the fact that no teacher can cure the problems created by a child growing up with stupid, uninquisitive, couch potato, uninvolved parents.

The answer has a lot more to do with vouchers and the need to provide society with free birth control than teachers. Tehy're just doing what the market allows them to. So they are lazy, and should be demonized. That's established. So what? You can't stop them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Of course, no one's taking you seriously on schools because you've posted endlessly on the subject without demonstrating any particular insight or expertise. It's pointless arguing with you.

Try this: post something about schools that isn't just complaining about teacher's unions. Is there anything other than teacher's unions that matters?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But you do realize that every sanctimonious misspelled post leads to another round of chuckles from everyone?

Adder, why'd you give this away? After he missed it the first time it was thrown in his face?

It was the principal that was at steak.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

It is circular because you begin with the assumption that your solutions are right. From this questionable assumption, you then conclude that teachers are the problem because they disagree with you. That, my friend, is the very definition of circular reasoning.

Now, if I was to give you the benefit of the doubt I could help you by this little circular problem by reading beyond your express statements to say that you believe the "problem" with schools in California is bad teachers, and that your three reforms are targetted to ridding schools of bad teachers. Then your argument would go thusly (and not be circular): (1) you believe that there are many bad teachers, (2) children can't learn from these bad teachers, (3) tenure and testing helps get rid of bad teachers, (4) teachers unions oppose these measures, (5) thus teachers unions are an impediment to improving our schools.

Of course, you didn't say any of that. Instead, you mouthed the talking point that teachers unions are THE problem with schools.

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.

No. I do not think it is absurd. I think it is irrelevant as it doesn't really mean anything to people who are rarely subject to dismissal or discipline for their academic speech. But the its irrelevance cuts both ways. It is no impediment to firing teachers for incompetence.

As to your question, the unions job is to protect teacher jobs.

Do you live in California?

There is a reason I have never commented specifically about California. If you want to have a California centered debate (and continue to assume that there is something unique about California in this regard), go to a California board.

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.

I keep saying you don't know what you are talking about because you keep making blanket statements as if your political positions were unambiguously correct. That means either you are being completely dishonest or you don't understand the topic you are discussing.

The fact that you limit your blanket statements to a single state (which is the most populous and one of the most diverse in the country) is not much of a limitation.

I have heard about the problems with firing a Los Angeles School Teacher.

I have heard the exact same complaints, from the exact set of republican talking points, in many other jurisdictions. Why do you think California is different?

Yes they can get fired, but not for failing to teach the students.

Please show me in the contract where it says that.

Document their failure? How can you when there is no testing?

It has traditionally been done by direct observation. But you are right in that this is the best argument for more testing.

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.

Where is the administrator who is supposed to be dealing with this?

And I do condemn them for circling the wagons around incompetent teachers.

They are circling the wagons around reduced job protections.

I asked him why he didn't fire my nephew and his answer was "he couldn't".

You need to start hearing this as "I didn't want to take the effort to get it done."

I just can't believe that you think getting rid of teachers that can't teach is a bad thing.

I don't. But I am not sure that reduce job protections for teachers is necessary to do it. In part because I don't think the problem is as widespread as you think it is. Again, there are many other challenges to successful education that bad teachers.

This is not Republican dogma.

The saddest part is that you don't even realize that it is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The root of the problem lies with the fact that no teacher can cure the problems created by a child growing up with stupid, uninquisitive, couch potato, uninvolved parents.

The answer has a lot more to do with vouchers and the need to provide society with free birth control than teachers. Tehy're just doing what the market allows them to. So they are lazy, and should be demonized. That's established. So what? You can't stop them.

The couch potato parents are a big problem that's mighty hard to do anything about; with teachers, at least you get a new one every year, so the average kid will get a few good ones over the course of their career. With parents, they're stuck with the one's they've got.

But there are kids who struggle who have issues you can do something about - kids struggling because of language barriers, the lack of decent food at home, parents who are just overwhelmed - and in each case the question is how to get them more one on one, more direct attention.

Any system that encourages some experimentation with different teaching methods - whether charter schools, parochial schools or something else, has to be part of the solution. A lot of these schools are finding ways to spend less time in groups of 30 and more time in broken out groups.

But doing things that make systems more uniform, so that they're all teaching the same way or the same thing, like the standardized testing pushed by many, gets directly in the way of this. I haven't figured out how conservatives deal with the conflict between the two.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
And then makes spelling mistakes when he mocks me. If you can't win on the facts, make it personal.

Spanky, I explicitly pointed out your spelling mistake after several others on the board mocked you and you didn't get it. You apparently would have preferred that I let you continue to make the same mistake without realizing that you were wrong. I will note that for the future.

As for my own spelling, I know I can't spell. I know I am a poor typist. And yet I don't proof read these posts. You may mock my spelling any time you would like.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It was the principal that was at steak.

Well, now, that's a modest proposal to the education problem.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't figured out how conservatives deal with the conflict between the two.

They don't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The couch potato parents are a big problem that's mighty hard to do anything about; with teachers, at least you get a new one every year, so the average kid will get a few good ones over the course of their career. With parents, they're stuck with the one's they've got.

But there are kids who struggle who have issues you can do something about - kids struggling because of language barriers, the lack of decent food at home, parents who are just overwhelmed - and in each case the question is how to get them more one on one, more direct attention.

Any system that encourages some experimentation with different teaching methods - whether charter schools, parochial schools or something else, has to be part of the solution. A lot of these schools are finding ways to spend less time in groups of 30 and more time in broken out groups.

But doing things that make systems more uniform, so that they're all teaching the same way or the same thing, like the standardized testing pushed by many, gets directly in the way of this. I haven't figured out how conservatives deal with the conflict between the two.

I think the volume probelm is kids who are hopeless because they come from homes where parents aren't/can't be involved in making sure they get education. I remember in law school learning about consumer rights laws that were really great and had real teeth- the problem was I had never heard of them until I went to LS. Point is these laws wouldn't help the people they were intended to help since those people never learned of the law.

A lot of the "different" stuff requires a parent to weigh and choose. Certainly options help when there is a parent- but in many schools there are not many parents who would do that. Hell, most of those kids/parents may not have any more knowledge of the options than they do of the consumer rights laws.

That is where standards come in. At least it attempts to make sure we aren't throwing kids into the world who can't read or do basic math.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
They are circling the wagons around reduced job protections.

They should have none. They should subject to the same at will firing I am.

Nobody deserves "job protection." The notion a person should have that makes a mockery of the "Capitalism" we pretend to observe.

You can be fired today, and you don't get to have your firing reviewed, do you? No, you don't. Why should a teacher get to have "job protection." Because he doesn't make as much as you do? That's his CHOICE. You smoke cigarettes, you are likely to get disease. You take a job as a teacher, you get summers off, and less money than the lawyer who lives down the street. If you don't like it, go get a different job. Otherwise, I say, you're lazy ass is doing pretty well... have a coke and smile and shut the fuck, Kotter.

This is issue all about envy and class politics. I've listened to relatives who teach bitch and whine about being underpaid and not having enough benefits. Cry me a river... A good buddy of mine's a professor. He laughs his ass off about the job. It's easy money and he has killer health insurance. He supplements it tending bar on weekends because he likes to and the money's good and tax free. Between the two gigs makes six figures, in a depressed area. Academia have it pretty fucking cushy; they'd do well to shut their mouths.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They should have none. They should subject to the same at will firing I am.

I am not sure that I disagree. But I don't expect teachers unions to agree with you.

A good buddy of mine's a professor. He laughs his ass off about the job. It's easy money and he has killer health insurance. He supplements it tending bar on weekends because he likes to and the money's good and tax free. Between the two gigs makes six figures, in a depressed area. Academia have it pretty fucking cushy; they'd do well to shut their mouths.

There are huge differences between jobs in post secondary education and K-12. The post secondary jobs are definitely pretty appealing.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They should have none. They should subject to the same at will firing I am.

You can be fired today, and you don't get to have your firing reviewed, do you? No, you don't.

You never did any employment law work did you? If you think its that easy, you're nuts. And all the plaintiffs-side employment lawyers are rolling on the floor laughing at that statement. Show me a shlub who got fired, and I'll come up with six ways to Sunday to slot em into a protected class. No review? right.

aV

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think the volume probelm is kids who are hopeless because they come from homes where parents aren't/can't be involved in making sure they get education. I remember in law school learning about consumer rights laws that were really great and had real teeth- the problem was I had never heard of them until I went to LS. Point is these laws wouldn't help the people they were intended to help since those people never learned of the law.

A lot of the "different" stuff requires a parent to weigh and choose. Certainly options help when there is a parent- but in many schools there are not many parents who would do that. Hell, most of those kids/parents may not have any more knowledge of the options than they do of the consumer rights laws.

This is true. It may be obvious that we've had many conflicts with our school system, and it has required research and consultatation with specialists. I'd love to get more such advocacy for kids who don't have parents to do it - how do we do this? We've stepped in for one or two kids we've seen in the school system and one kid in the neighborhood to help their parents out, and have had others help us, but our occassional assistance is not the kind of continuous and focused help the kids need.

Is there anyone other than the teacher (assuming the kid finds the right one at some point in their education) or guidance counselor (often useless) who can play this role? Without these mentors, do these kids just suffer? I think some of the charter schools and parochial schools do have answers to these questions (as you point out, ONCE the kid/parents are directed to them).

That is where standards come in. At least it attempts to make sure we aren't throwing kids into the world who can't read or do basic math.

Everyone wants kids to be graduating with basic (indeed, more than basic, but let's not get ahead of ourselves) skills; the question is whether standardized tests are as useful as grades and direct assessments by educators in doing this. Tests have always been used to gather information; using them as the sole measure of curricula, teaching and administration is what I can't understand.

Some of the testing fad may be because schools have overflated grades and not focused on real assessment enough - but I would address the fundamental problems instead, so the grades and assessments become meaningful.