Sure, if you say so. But see my response to him nonetheless.
You have a hard time with logic, I see. Maybe you’re a product of the KC Project, which then absolves you of all responsibility for you deficiencies. Just to throw you a bone and clue you in though, just because YOUR rejoinder suffered from being formulaic, that does not mean the the components you used to craft it were also, in and of themselves, formulaic. You see, what I wrote, was original. I used my own words. What you wrote attempted to piggyback on the wit and levity contained in mine and failed miserably. So any other adjectives you ascribe to your exercise, i.e., trite, hackneyed, you get to take full credit for. That said, I appreciate the attempt at wit and levity: I give it on a scale of 1 - 10 a 2.3. And that’s only because I see a glimmer of something there and feel you should be encouraged.
Keep digging sunshine. Your vain attempts to make yourself appear capable of cogency amuse to no end.
Wow! Is that the best you can do? Accuse me of being a product of The Kansas City Project? In essence say that I’m stupid? The other children on the playground must find you the very essence of brilliance. Kind of, well. . .sad, really.
:rolleyes: Or choose Option B: don’t see my response to him and avoid having to reply with substance.
Oh SNAP! You leveled me with the old “…with the other children”. Guffaw, I tell you, GUFFAW!! You know, maybe I shouldn’t have encouraged you with the wit and levity thing after all. Now I don’t mind playing your little game instead of discussing the issues, but you simply must do better. If you can’t raise the originality and entertainment value, stick with substance. Come on son, you’ve gotta gimme something here.
Oh, in addition to acknowledging what you volunteered (that you lived through the KC projects) I detailed what was nonsensical about your rejoinder. If you can’t follow that, it seems likely that you were one of the students the KC project failed. Makes sense, right? Now if, by some ridiculously slight chance, you were not a student at the time you “lived” through it, but a teacher, that helps explain why a public school program that had, in essence, unlimited funds, still failed. That and the fact that money is not the problem.
The government has a monopoly in education. So secular private schools are not ubiquitous because there is no motivation provided the entrepreneur to invest in these type of capitalistic ventures. Non-secular schools are ubiquitous because the reward is eternal salvation. My taxes are my money and my children are my responsibility. I want my money to provide stimulus to the private sector to offer an alternative to the far left public schools and the far right religious schools.
So ‘D’ you are comfortable with the status quo of no vouchers while yet sending your children to private catholic schools. Obama is a hypocrite in regard school vouchers as he does not support them while he sends his children to private school! McCain on the other hand supports school voucher system.
So ‘D’ if it is so wrong that taxpayer money goes to non-secular schools give your money to the public schools that you pay to the catholic school so that all children can benefit from a better non-secular education and beat the law that Obama will pass to take that extra money you have for a non-secular education from you.
Here’ what GLWastefu & I ( I think I am right in what GLWastefu was saying): *That pre-voucher parents didn’t try to fix things? What does the KC project have to do with this?
GLWasteful Is more or less correct when he said: "And from how I read DrDeth’s post he was complaining about voucher proponents who want to take money from public schools where anyone can go, and give it to private schools where the student population is rigidly controlled. He was in no way speaking of a school district that was in decidedly less-than-ideal shape and the noble if misguided attempt of a judge to right that wrong.
With one small caveat- taking the taxpayers money from schools controled (at least a little) by the taxpayers (which are “public schools where anyone can go”) and giving it to schools where the taxpayers have no control at all- i.e. “Private schools where the student population is rigidly controlled”."
*
We were talking about a system where Parents get involved in a bad public school system and try to change things by voting the bastards out, changing policies, improving the learning experience, stopping waste fraud & mismanagement".
The KC Project was a system where a Judge (with little or no parental involvement or input) tried to change things by *throwing money at the system and forcing integration. *
A Judge is not the parents, and throwing money at the system and forcing integration is not voting the bastards out, changing policies, improving the learning experience, stopping waste fraud & mismanagement. The two are in no way coparable. You need **Parental involvement.
**
Here’ what your cite said why the Project didn’t work:# *The political realities of inner-city Kansas City made it impossible to fire incompetent teachers and principals and hire good ones.
Because the community regarded the school system as much as an employment opportunity as an educational institution, less than half the education budget ever made it to the classroom.
School superintendents found it hard to function because every decision was second-guessed by the court-appointed monitoring committee; the attorney for the plaintiffs; and the state of Missouri, which was paying most of the bills.
Because the designers of the Kansas City plan assumed that inner-city blacks couldn’t learn unless they sat in classrooms with middle-class whites, the district wasted exorbitant amounts of time and money on expensive facilities and elaborate programs intended to attract suburban whites instead of focusing its attention on the needs of inner-city blacks.
By turning virtually every school in the district into a magnet school, the Kansas City plan destroyed schools as essential parts of neighborhoods, fractured neighborhoods’ sense of community, and alienated parents.
The mechanism used to fund improvements to the school system (a federal desegregation lawsuit) deflected attention from the real problem–the need to raise black achievement.
The ideological biases of local educators and politicians, and the federal court, made them reject solutions that might have worked, such as merit pay, charter schools, or offers by private schools to educate students in return for vouchers.
Because the district had no way to evaluate the performance of teachers and administrators, promotions couldn’t be based on merit.
The desegregation plan created inverse achievement incentives–the district got hundreds of millions of extra dollars in court-ordered funding each year but only if student test scores failed to meet national norms. *"
(and of course you have to realize that the Cato institute has a very strong Conservative and Libertarian bias.)
And later about a similar system: “*Why,” asked one Los Angeles Times reporter, “aren’t children performing better in a district that wants for nothing money can buy?”(132)
* One reason, certainly, is parental influence, or lack thereof." (bolding mine)
You-as a parent- need to get the school systems to change in a way to better educate your kids. Not by taking the money and running away.
I saw your response. And as I’ve now pointed out to you more than once: You’re wrong. Initially, you may have been mistaken, then you were clinging to an incorrect interpretation of what was said. Now you’re just being petulant. Sweet merciful mother of fuck, boychik. Are you always this obstinately obtuse?
Never mind. You are. Ignorance fought.
Again, wow! You lack the testicular fortitude to actually call me dumb, so attempt to impugn my intelligence by inferring that if I’m not a former student I must be a teacher? Obstinately obstinate and willfully deluded all wrapped up into one neat little package and topped off with insults that you’re afraid to actually make. Almost makes me want to see what Thanksgiving must be like in your home.
Both you and **GL ** have emphasized this, and to a point I agree. Parental involvement in education is critical. However, your “take the money and run away” statement continues to be extremely insulting.
Because the School Board does not do its job
Because the School Superintendent does not do his job
Because the Principal does not do his job
Because the Teacher does not do his job
You want to blame the PARENTS? That is bullshit.
I will try to state again: It can take years to fire a poorly performing teacher, if ever. They are too-well protected, and the BEST that the INVOLVED parent can do is get their kid into someone else’s class. This is IF they have enough information from parents of older kids to make the changes early enough. God help them if the teacher starts phoning it in mid-term. At that point the other classes are full, and NO change can be made due to the system we operate under.
Sorry - the modern American Educational System is incapable of quick change. I lived through New Math, Open Classrooms and the elimination of Tracking. I am lucky that the only impact I have to pay for (and I do pay for it) in my kid’s current education is to keep them out of the classrooms of the sub-par instructors. However, even Governor Ahnold does not have the power to take on the Teachers Union - how the hell do you expect me to make a difference?
Just give me the option of taking an allocated amount of the money directly spent on my kids and let me CHOOSE which educational institution to support. I will keep it at my local school, but I will enjoy having the power of the consumer instead of the power of a FORCED system.
Except that I never blamed parents. Accusing me of doing something I never did is bullshit. And if the School Board doesn’t do it’s job, you vote the bastards out. And vote your own bastards in. If the Superintendent doesn’t do his job, you hold the School Board accountable. Despite my general misanthropy and snarkiness, I listen to the members of the community because I know that I, as an individual, cannot know everything. If your School Board members do not follow this dictate, see solution number one. If the Principal does not do his job, then you demand an audience with the Superintendent and make it abundantly clear why you are upset and that you will be making an address to the Board at their next meeting and will have media in tow. If you have a point, action will be taken. If the Teacher doesn’t do his job, you follow the path I’ve already laid out except starting at the Principal. None of this is blaming parents. Hell, if anything it’s empowering parents. If said parents choose to throw their hands up and say, “We’ll never be listened to by the entrenched powers that be because they’re simply too powerful,” without at least trying to make changes, then I will blame the parents for their inaction.
Dunno what sort of Kafkaesque nightmare your District is, but where I operate, shit gets done. Does it always happen immediately? No. And the BEST that the INVOLVED parent can do is make his or her grievances known. If they have a point and not just a hardon for a given teacher, then their complaints are looked at carefully. Rest assured, though, if a teacher sucks, we don’t want 'em. And will usually be able to tell during their initial employment before they have tenure. Is it a perfect system? Not at all. But it’s pretty damned good.
Y’know, for someone who took umbrage with my broad brush, you appear to be toting quite the monster there your own self. And if your child is being adversely affected by a teacher and you don’t do something, then who would you recommend I blame? In a situation like that, you’re not fighting an entire Teachers Union, you’re fighting to get one teacher removed who you claim is fucking things up for your child. If you’re right, then said teacher is probably fucking things up for the children of a lot of other people, as well. If that is indeed the case, then you’d be truly surprised what you can accomplish. Doesn’t matter who or what the Governor is.
It’s not a forced system if there are private options that exist. Education is not a commodity. As one who is a public school teacher, I would imagine you know that. And if you do think that an education is something that is tangible then I respectfully submit that you’ve chosen the wrong career.
Whoops - I am not a teacher. Not sure if I made that insinuation, but it is incorrect. I am involved in the education system, but as a lecturer at the graduate level (and that is in the evenings - I have a day job). Sorry about any misconceptions. I have done teaching in the inner city, but never as a paid, credientialed teacher.
I was responding to DrDeth and his “take the money and run comment,” by the way. If it looks like I was blending your posts, apologies again. In the same sense, sorry about the broad brush. I think it came out first from your side of the arguement, however, in the anti-voucher strawman that was constructed.
Now, lets touch on other comments. A school board appointment is for 3 years or so. So I need to wait 3 years to make the big change at the top. thanks for that option. I will get back to you after yet another round of kids is screwed. This assumes I can amass sufficient resources to beat back the PAC that is funded by mandatory withdrawels from all of the teacher’s paychecks.
I don’t know what kind of a free market you operate in, but tenured teachers are very difficult to dislodge, and it is next to impossible to move them mid-year. I am glad your district operates so well. Mine is very highly ranked and I have still seen some poor teachers stick around. The best we did with some of them is dumped them on another school (oh well, tough shit for those kids too I guess).
Finally, education IS a commodity - a precious one. It can and should be offered in as many varieties as the market will allow. The private schools do very well in this marketplace, and I would like to see their product more available to the lower and middle classes. That can and will provide partial relief to those parents stuck in a TRUE Kafka-esque hellhole like much of the Los Angeles Unified School District (for an example).
A problem with so many posters is that one can easily forget specifics. I apologize for making that assumption. And for the record, it’s not a strawman when the people that I see, meet and otherwise encounter and engage in person on a regular basis use the argument that I related.
Few things: Not all board positions are up each three years. F’rinstance, hereabouts another individual and I are up for re-election next spring. This past spring three seats were due to be up. And in two years, two other seats will be up. So please don’t act as if it’s all or nothing, because that is quite simply not the case at all. As a concerned parent, I would imagine you already know this. And if you will read carefully what I said, the teacher that you were bitching about isn’t only hosing your child, but the children of others as well. Strength in numbers, used judiciously and with the addition of media kick the everloving crap outta any perceived Big Bad Union. Don’t believe me? Try it and see.
Oh, they can be hard to get rid of here, too. But as I said, if you’re in the right, and not just pissed because your child got a grade that you disagree with, you can get a helluva lot accomplished. We have poor teachers. As does every single district in the US. We do everything in our power to make them feel leaving is the best option if they don’t egregiously fuck up in any other wise. Again, it ain’t perfect, but neither is throwing your hands in the air and saying, “Screw this! I want my kids to get the money that would otherwise be spent on them and I’m gonna send 'em to St Aloysius where they have better scores.” And what’s usually implied (alas, if only it were ever so) is that St Aloysius has better marks because they have fewer “urban” students. And at the end of the day, I wind up looking at my district. And if that means that a crappy teacher left here and went to another district nearby, well, them’s the breaks.
Competition doesn’t cure all ills. As I have said innumerable times since I first jumped into this little maelstrom, private schools do very well because they have the luxury of saying, “No, we won’t take your child.” Don’t need a reason. They can just refuse to take a given kid. So they don’t do better. 'Samatter of fact, they do worse when you control for the kids who they wouldn’t take in the first place. So, you wind up shitting all over every other kid in a given school when you take your own kid and his tax dollar allotment and send them down the road to St Somebody, or Groton Country Day, or whatever private school you so desire. I know from cocked up districts. As I’ve said, I lived in Kansas City during the Benson years. And any number of things can be said about what went down, some positive, some negative. I dunno about LAUSD. But I saw things that were seriously fucked up, and some that still are.
You choose the School Board, which choose the Superintendent (in some areas they are also elected) and they choose the Administrators. So yes, the choise of who is on the School boards- and thus indiretcly who is the administrators is your fault.
Teachers are a different matter. Until they get tenure, they are the choice of the Admin or the School boards. So during their formative years, when we can see what sort of tacher they will be- yes, you have a strong voice.
However, why should a bad Administrator want to fire a teacher for the reason they don’t teach well? They don’t, they want to get rid of malcontents, those that don;t “toe the line” those, those that make extra work for the Admin- not becuase they are poor teachers.
But the tenure system protects teachers from being removed as they are in the wrong political party, or join the union or teach their kids better, or refuse to ass-kiss. However, more often if a teacher is bad it’s becuase they always were bad, and were allowed to get tenure becuase of their ass-kissing skills, not their teaching skills.
Yes, some good teachers do get tenure and get burned out and become bad teachers. And tenure does protect them- but a good administrator, one who really wants good teachers can put any teacher “out to pasture” to teach gym, homeroom, whatever. Nor does the Teacher’s Union want to protect the really bad teachers either.
So, if you have a good string admin- no bad teachers will ever get tenure in the 1st place, and the few that get burned out and “go bad” late can be shunted aside and prevented from doing any real damage- if the Admin really wants to do it. If the Admin doesn’t want to do it- it’s your fault as you didn’t pick a good school board to hire good admin.
As for getting to choose where your taxes go- yes, that’s nice but no one gest to do that- I don’t get to see that *my *road tax fixes the roads on my street. And, I about half of my CA taxes go to pay for the education of other folks kids, and I don’t get a choice about that either. Nor can I opt out of Social Security, nor get the Feds to cut military spending by the 1/3 of my Fed taxes they collect. :rolleyes: We don’t get to spend our personal share of the taxes on stuff that benefits just us. :rolleyes:
Yes, when I had a problem with a Teacher in Jr HS, my dad went in and talked to the Principal, who originally basicly blew my Dad off. Until my Dad said he’d call his personal friend, Supervisor Kenny Hahn. All of a sudden, the Principal was all buddy buddy and things got done. Just dropping that name got results.
Speaking for California, it is possible to get rid of a bad teacher. Sure it may take a while and involve a ton of paperwork, but the biggest reason I see incompetent teachers staying is that ADMINISTRATORS almost never get off their ass and do the observations and interventions needed to fire a teacher. The reason that unions get involve is when a principal tries to short-cut the process and violate the teacher’s rights under state law, specifically the district must provide the teacher with a WRITTEN intervention plan and actively support the teacher in that plan before firing them.
I’ve been absent for a bit, but are you telling me that the Teacher’s Union won’t back a specific candidate? Here is a Maryland union that backed a gubernatorial candidate.
This article mentions the endorsement by the teacher’s union of one of the candidates for the City Council seat.
Except in the District what kind of influence does the school board have? They have had their authority stripped away in the past few months by the mayor’s office.
Generally, I would think that the state big wigs have more influence than the school board.
Correct.
**
Caffeine.addict** Certainly- each area will have different areas of power and responsibility. Pick the one you can most influence who most directly influences your school.