Its the Teachers, stupid........

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

EL PRESIDENTE

Username Retired in Honor of Lanny.
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
50,346
Likes
22,532
Points
113
Interesting study. The LA Teacher's union called to Boycott the LA Times because of this article....

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-value-20100815,0,2695044.story

Yet year after year, one fifth-grade class learns far more than the other down the hall. The difference has almost nothing to do with the size of the class, the students or their parents.

It's their teachers.

With Miguel Aguilar, students consistently have made striking gains on state standardized tests, many of them vaulting from the bottom third of students in Los Angeles schools to well above average, according to a Times analysis. John Smith's pupils next door have started out slightly ahead of Aguilar's but by the end of the year have been far behind.

In Los Angeles and across the country, education officials have long known of the often huge disparities among teachers. They've seen the indelible effects, for good and ill, on children. But rather than analyze and address these disparities, they have opted mostly to ignore them.

Most districts act as though one teacher is about as good as another. As a result, the most effective teachers often go unrecognized, the keys to their success rarely studied. Ineffective teachers often face no consequences and get no extra help.

Which teacher a child gets is usually an accident of fate, in which the progress of some students is hindered while others just steps away thrive.

Though the government spends billions of dollars every year on education, relatively little of the money has gone to figuring out which teachers are effective and why.
Seeking to shed light on the problem, The Times obtained seven years of math and English test scores from the Los Angeles Unified School District and used the information to estimate the effectiveness of L.A. teachers — something the district could do but has not.

The Times used a statistical approach known as value-added analysis, which rates teachers based on their students' progress on standardized tests from year to year. Each student's performance is compared with his or her own in past years, which largely controls for outside influences often blamed for academic failure: poverty, prior learning and other factors.

Though controversial among teachers and others, the method has been increasingly embraced by education leaders and policymakers across the country, including the Obama administration.

In coming months, The Times will publish a series of articles and a database analyzing individual teachers' effectiveness in the nation's second-largest school district — the first time, experts say, such information has been made public anywhere in the country.

Funny how scurred the Teachers Unions are:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-react-20100816,0,6701929.story

"You're leading people in a dangerous direction, making it seem like you can judge the quality of a teacher by … a test," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has more than 40,000 members.

Duffy said he would urge other labor groups to ask their members to cancel their subscriptions.

SCURRED!
\
:ohno:
 
Did you hear about the school in RI that fired all the teachers because they were performing so badly?
 
Did you hear about the school in RI that fired all the teachers because they were performing so badly?

If Reagan were still President..................................
 
they need to stop defending bad teachers and just fucking can them like any other job.

good teachers will stay but bad ones should get teh step.
 
they need to stop defending bad teachers and just fucking can them like any other job.

good teachers will stay but bad ones should get teh step.

Unions are the scourge of sound business operations.
 
It's not the teachers, it's the administrators.

Every exceptional teacher I had in my life had to constantly butt heads with the principal and school board because he/she didn't fit their mold and wouldn't validate the untruths they wanted taught.
 
He'd be 99yrs old and suffering terribly from the effects of Alzheimer's disease.

Well.....

...I doubt he'd exploit for political purposes any of his detractors' youth and inexperience. That said, if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.
 
It's not the teachers, it's the administrators.

Every exceptional teacher I had in my life had to constantly butt heads with the principal and school board because he/she didn't fit their mold and wouldn't validate the untruths they wanted taught.


So you don't think teachers should be hired/fired based on performance?
 
So you're saying that helping the uber-wealthy helps the economy?

Maris, I'm disappointed in you. Where has my favorite little commie gone?

No, I am not. Just the opposite in fact.

The mere existence of uber-wealthy citizens assures most citizens will live in squalor, and the economy will stagnate and die.

For every billionaire created, thousands of families are pushed into poverty.
 
No, I am not. Just the opposite in fact.

The mere existence of uber-wealthy citizens assures most citizens will live in squalor, and the economy will stagnate and die.

For every billionaire created, thousands of families are pushed into poverty.

This is classic, even for you Maris. And that is sayin' something.

I hate that billionaires never create any jobs or economy. Bill Gates, The Google Guys... nope. No jobs or economy created there.
 
So you don't think teachers should be hired/fired based on performance?

Of course they should, but few if any school districts have an accurate way to measure a teacher's performance.

The LA Times article for example, makes a huge leap here and ignores the most significant and probably only major difference between the 2 classes.

The students are all Hispanic from uneducated families where the parents probably speak little or no English, so we can assume many of the children also struggle with it. Many also probably have had sporadic schooling and/or no pre-school.

The "good" teacher is Hispanic. The "bad" teacher is not Hispanic. Gee, I wonder who has the edge here...

In a class situation more representative of average American 5th grader (fluent in English, schooled since 4-5 years of age) my money is on the other guy.

You can pretty much discard the rest of the "study" as carefully structured to obtain a pre-determined result.
 
Last edited:
This is classic, even for you Maris. And that is sayin' something.

I hate that billionaires never create any jobs or economy. Bill Gates, The Google Guys... nope. No jobs or economy created there.


You miss the bigger picture. There is a finite amount of money. The more Paul Allen has (currently enough to easily support 10,000 or so families for their entire lives) the less other Americans have.

As for "job creation", that's another myth perpetuated by the uber-wealthy and politicos to get their way and bend the rules in their favor. Usually to the detriment of the average citizen (waiving development fees to a builder, waiving environmental safeguards to a manufacturer, waiving building height/parking limitations to a commercial plant) and usually increasing your future taxes.

Jobs are not created by employers. Jobs are created by consumers.

Without demand, there is no reason to supply. Without a need, there is no reason for service.
 
You miss the bigger picture. There is a finite amount of money. The more Paul Allen has (currently enough to easily support 10,000 or so families for their entire lives) the less other Americans have.

As for "job creation", that's another myth perpetuated by the uber-wealthy and politicos to get their way and bend the rules in their favor. Usually to the detriment of the average citizen (waiving development fees to a builder, waiving environmental safeguards to a manufacturer, waiving building height/parking limitations to a commercial plant) and usually increasing your future taxes.

Jobs are not created by employers. Jobs are created by consumers.

Without demand, there is no reason to supply. Without a need, there is no reason for service.

There isn't a finite amount of money.

The rest of your logic fails from there on.
 
That was a thing of beauty.

I agree, and I know 2 girls teaching there. Bottom line, people getting paid with our tax dollars should be held accountable for their performance, just like those working for private companies. If you're a janitor, and your job is to wash floors, and you only wash half the floors well and the other half like shit, you're gonna get fired. If you're a cashier, and your cash drawer only has half the money its supposed to in it, then you're going to get fired. That's why unions suck, they started off as a useful thing, to protect good employees, but now it's just an excuse for people to do the bare minimum in order to keep their job.
 
There isn't a finite amount of money.

The rest of your logic fails from there on.

Maybe I confused you by using the term money, when more accurately I meant wealth.

Obviously, more money can be printed but that would only devalue the base unit and the total wealth would stay the same.

As for the meaning of finite in my post, c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.

All told, anyone looking for all of the U.S. dollars in the world in July 2009 could expect to find around $8.3 trillion in existence.


Imagine the unparalleled arrogance required for someone like Paul Allen to hoard over 1,oooth of his country's total wealth while tens of millions of his countrymen suffer, ail and die for lack of simple basic needs like food, shelter and medical attention.

39,000,000 people living below the poverty level so PA can live the life of Satan.
 
Did you hear about the school in RI that fired all the teachers because they were performing so badly?

If they had to fire all the teachers for incompetence then the problem is obviously not the teachers, it's higher up the ladder.

Somebody hired those teachers and presumably gave them guidance and direction. That's your weak link.
 
Something to note here is not that all students have to meet one single predetermined achievement level for a teacher to be considered successful. They just have to be better than they were last year. Isn't annual progress the whole point of teaching and why school takes 12 years instead of two or three?

And whoever blamed the unions has it right. There are studies out there (I'll try to find them at some point) that show that younger teachers make more learning happen than their older, tenured counterparts. That's not to say that there aren't terrific tenured teachers out there, but if you know you can't be fired unless you hit someone pretty much, why improve?

Lastly, the pay for teachers is flat out shit for the amount of work they're doing. Sure they're getting summers off, but they're also working 11 hour days for most of the academic year when you add planning, grading, and meetings to the class day. And most of the good ones are also the ones who are volunteering with the clubs and orgs offered by schools and are doing even more.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I confused you by using the term money, when more accurately I meant wealth.

Obviously, more money can be printed but that would only devalue the base unit and the total wealth would stay the same.

As for the meaning of finite in my post, c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.

All told, anyone looking for all of the U.S. dollars in the world in July 2009 could expect to find around $8.3 trillion in existence.


Imagine the unparalleled arrogance required for someone like Paul Allen to hoard over 1,oooth of his country's total wealth while tens of millions of his countrymen suffer, ail and die for lack of simple basic needs like food, shelter and medical attention.

39,000,000 people living below the poverty level so PA can live the life of Satan.

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, either. You can discover a gold mine or oil well in your back yard. These things increase the size of whichever pie you think you're talking about. Here's a clue: inventing a new thing is like discovering gold or oil.

Bill Gates' ~$50B in wealth is worth .35% (less than 1%) of the nation's GDP. That's his entire life savings vs. one year of national income. It's 1/2 that vs. two years of national income. And so on.

As I said in my previous post, your logic is flaws from the first point and falls down from that point forward.
 
Something to note here is not that all students have to meet one single predetermined achievement level for a teacher to be considered successful. They just have to be better than they were last year. Isn't annual progress the whole point of teaching and why school takes 12 years instead of two or three?

And whoever blamed the unions has it right. There are studies out there (I'll try to find them at some point) that show that younger teachers make more learning happen than their older, tenured counterparts. That's not to say that there aren't terrific tenured teachers out there, but if you know you can't be fired unless you hit someone pretty much, why improve?

Lastly, the pay for teachers is flat out shit for the amount of work they're doing. Sure they're getting summers off, but they're also working 11 hour days for most of the academic year when you add planning, grading, and meetings to the class day. And most of the good ones are also the ones who are volunteering with the clubs and orgs offered by schools and are doing even more.
I disagree that they ate underpaid. I know about a dozen teachers and they aren't working twelve hours a day. Everything is pre structured now, they don't have to plan much. After all the vacation time is factored in they are only working half the year. I think they are paid well considering that.
 
There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, either. You can discover a gold mine or oil well in your back yard. These things increase the size of whichever pie you think you're talking about.

Unless you refer to wealth as an idea (he has a wealth of friends...) and not a reality, you're wrong. All actual wealth must be based on something tangible. Tangibles do not increase, although they can be transformed from other tangibles.

Discovering something that is already in existence in a fixed amount does not change the fact that there is only a certain amount of it. If there's a $100 bill under my bed and I found it, the amount of money has not changed, just my knowledge of it's presence. Natural resources like gold and oil exist in finite amounts, though much of it may be hidden from view. Finding it only increases your possession of it, not it's total amount. Furthermore, resources like trees, oil, diamonds, food...can be produced only at the expense of other resources. More diamonds = less coal. More food and lumber = less minerals. More oil = less dinosaurs. You can't produce something out of nothing, it has to be produced from something else.

This is why real estate will always be the best long-term investment one can make (unless and until the world population stops increasing). A finite amount of it exists, and the people dividing it up are increasing at a phenomenal rate. There is about 5 acres of livable land available for each person on the Earth today. There will be less available per person each day the population increases. Scarcity increases demand and demand increases value. And while this fact would seem to "create" wealth simply by holding onto land, monetary systems are nothing more than (highly flawed) concepts of wealth measurement and in the end if you have 5 acres and every resource on it all your life it's actual worth in reality never changes. It is what it is.

from wiki: The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.
 
Unless you refer to wealth as an idea (he has a wealth of friends...) and not a reality, you're wrong. All actual wealth must be based on something tangible. Tangibles do not increase, although they can be transformed from other tangibles.

I love it when you strut your ignorance proudly, for all to see.

The rest of your post is invalid. Do you really think Earth is an isolated system?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top