"If she sees me and she (or the thief) shares it online, it *is* an invasion of my privacy. "
It is not intrinsically an invasion of your privacy. If it were in a place where you can ASSUME privacy (such as a restroom), then yes. But if it's an open, public place it is NOT an invasion of your PRIVACY.
In the US, we are allowed to videotape or photograph anything or anyone in public space. Private properties may prohibit it -- and if it "leaked" out due to a theft of photos or device you STILL wouldn't have had your "privacy" violated -- the owner of the private property would have.
"You might find that if you used GG here in Germany, you might find yourself confronted with a lawsuit."
The event didn't happen in Germany. It happened in the US. US law applies. This really isn't complicated.
Oh how I remember "movie night" a few years ago. Wife/kids would go to pop popcorn and since the file server and internet connection was wifi'd elsewhere, POOF goes the movie. Had to plan out WHEN to use the microwave before mediaportal/netflix use.
I have a dual band device. It actually allows me to have 4 separate wireless networks -- 2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 2 5g (primary and guest). I set up three (2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 1 5g). The few legacy devices I have are on the 2.4 and the rest are on 5g.
Works great. You're not going to get that functionality for $39.99... but you certainly can for under $150.
"The real problem is, you are right and the anti-union people are right. Last hired - first fired policies do nothing to protect quality teachers."
You are right. If you can't get rid of bad teachers (recent example in CA for SLEEPING in class on several occasions by SEVERAL teachers -- they're still in limbo and will most likely all "retire" with benefits so we STILL get to pay them even *IF* we finally get rid of them), then yeah -- the last hired, first fired thing is effectively meaningless.
That's well above the median pay in CA. Further, that $70 doesn't include benefits. Calculate that in and teachers are, in fact, doing VERY well in CA.
There was a time when working a "public" job meant taking lesser pay for greater benefits and retirement...
"Voucher will just destroy the school system, and do NOTHING to improve education. "
Good. Maybe it needs to be destroyed. And as far as "improving education", there's a REASON why parents want their kids elsewhere -- and that's because the public schools are failing in what they are designed to do.
" It's all based on the myth the private education is better."
You're wrong. It's based on the fact that when presented with a choice, parents will pick the school with the best results IN THEIR AREA. They may have a crappy public school and a less crappy charter or private school and when those are the ONLY choices, you pick the less crappy.
"Even then it's hard to say if its the educational system, or just affluent parents leading to success."
It's easy to say: It's a combination of teachers who must perform, parents who are involved and resources available to the students. With public schools, you are often missing the first two -- and if that's the case, there will NEVER be enough of the third. Nobody has unlimited resources. We need to pull out kids who either cant keep up or are too disruptive and put them where we can focus the extra resources THEY need rather than slowing down or back-peddling the bulk of the student body.
"You want to improve the school system in CA? Get rid of prop 13."
Wrong. Tossing money at the problem at the expense of tax payers (who are already overtaxed in CA) is a solution that has yet to yield results. The "reported" per student cost in CA is grossly under reported. Toss in the bond money (of which CA taxpayers have been extremely generous) and capitol expenses and the per student cost is well between 20k-30k.
BTW, you never answered my question in the previous thread where you suggested I was lying. click me
"We invoke the past every time we use one of those old maxims like 'turn up the volume""
Off topic, yes, but I'd like add that my wifes side of the family are immigrants and either naturalized Americans or residents on their way to citizenship. I hear daily the slaughter of many old sayings like the one you cite. Like "turn up the noise".
Some of it is language translations on the fly. My favorite is when my wife is angry and she wants to say something like: "Thats it! PERIOD!" What she ends up saying is "That's it! POINT!"
Now back on topic. You are right -- I do end up explaining a lot of idioms and where they derive to my kids. Or sometimes I need to explain why there is a glass TARDIS out in the middle of nowhere (old phone booth). I got a belly laugh when my daughter asked me that...
"Do you (or do you plan to) educate your kids about any particular older technologies? "
I was never taught how to knap rocks in to spear heads so I don't really think it's necessary for me to teach my kids how vacuum tubes work.
That said, my kids are pretty curious on their own. My daughter at age 10 modified a gear kit to turn a spiral in a tube to dispense dog food on a timer (not for real world applications, but for a science project) and built a circuit to set off an alarm when her drawer is opened -- granted, that started out as a kit, but she learned a bit and modified the alarm to be louder and the photocell to be more sensitive. She's also a fairly steady hand with a soldering iron now, too.
My son is more interested in how to work things rather than how things work, if that makes sense.
According to Mileage Keeper (which I track my gas consumption for the last 2+ years -- and the spreadsheet I tracked before then collecting data from my ancient treo and less ancient android), my last gas bill was $50.86. I had traveled 323 miles, gas was 3.599 per gallon and my mileage was 22.8 mpg. Before that 20.9, before that, 22.7 mpg. Going back to last year when I needed to make a run from LA to Fresno I, as expected, got 27.9 mpg.
I also have the receipts for all work performed on it since 1995 (lost the earlier stuff in a fire). I keep the truck in decent shape (at least the engine -- the cab looks like a disaster), keep the tires at the right pressure, I don't have a heavy foot and I'm easy on the clutch.
"We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect"
Um... no. We must have the blind ambition to push beyond some perceived limits of our intellect. Humility for our achievements -- but aggressive in our progress. I for one would like to see my great^x grand children living on another rock circling another fireball one day.
"The price of gas has literally multiplied several times in my lifetime and I'm not much older than 30. It will for your children too. Electric cars that are as or more convenient than gas powered ones will come when it costs 300 bucks to fill a tank."
I'm 46. The cheapest I ever paid for gas was around $0.85/gal. The most I've paid was about $4.99. I currently pay about $3.80. I'm looking at a 4x price increase in my driving lifetime (which is about your entire lifetime). 30 years before my first tank of gas the cost was around $0.25 per gallon. Once again, about a 4x increase (a close enough estimate, anyway). And when adjusted for inflation, was much more expensive "way back when". If that trend continues, my kids kids may be spending around $16 per gal 30 years down the road. And yes, it might hockey-stick...
You'll see behavior change before any massive adoption changes. If it costs $300 to fill a tank people will shift to walking to stuff that's less than a few miles away. Or greater bike usage for near by trips. Only when the cost of running a gas car per mile per year (including the cost of the vehicle) is greater than that of an electrical vehicle you will see a shift to a majority of electric vehicles being sold.
I'm atypical and regularly drive around 2000 mile per year. My vehicle is a 26 year old toyota pick up which gets about 22 mpg (4 banger which sees little freeway driving where it gets between 26-29 mpg).
I spend about $350 per year on gas. I own the vehicle. It costs me less than $500 in maintenance per year. Why the HECK would I spend ANYTHING for an electric car or otherwise when these are the numbers? I'd be throwing away money.
"We are arguing about two different things here. I am arguing about reforming the system - you are arguing about finding a good school for your kids. "
I don't think we are. The reforms you are talking about wont work -- particularly in my area. Pay of teachers is good at the public level.
When benefits (which are incredibly generous) are added to the mix, it's actually a very good deal -- so I've no idea what you are talking about.
I can find numerous counter examples where schools/students perform well with average pay BELOW the average.
With regards to reforming the system, I don't disagree. Reform away. But until we can (A) get rid of teachers easier, (B) provide a choice to parents on where to PLACE their kids and (C) (don't think it's required, but certainly would help) CLOSE a failed school (let it re-open either as a charter or with new administrative/teaching staff), then I don't see reform working.
I read somewhere in this thread a very insightful observation:
I am totally heartless when it comes to caring if a teacher is employed or not. I care about what they get out of their class. In the same vein, if I go to McDonalds and order a cheese burger and it is brought to me more or less as I expect, great. If it comes messy, missing onions or pickles, then I don't care if the guy on the food line loses his job or not. Fix the problem or I go else where. THAT should be the reform. IT SIMPLY WORKS.
I don't think you know the definition of sociopathy.
The "disinterest" in others isn't universal in instances of death penalty cases and also very reasonable. Particularly to those who have been victims or are relatives of victims of violent crimes.
I have not only sympathy, but EMPATHY for anyone who states "no crueler than what he did to the victim". To call THAT person "no better than the bad guys" and cite it as 'sociopathic' and a 'sad state of humanity' is a gross mischaracterization and just just poor reasoning.
If I have a cancerous growth, I have it treated -- and the treatment always is to kill the cancer -- not to lock it behind the pinky-toe, feed it and keep it warm for the rest of the hosts life. I find it difficult to grant "humanity" to such monsters. I don't care if they can walk, talk, feel pain -- whatever. They have done something inhuman.
I speak as the parent of a young child who was kidnapped and brutally and repeatably raped. I also speak as someone who has been steadfastly opposed to the death penalty. I would be lying if I told you that event hasn't effected my "world view" on capitol crimes. While I still lean anti-capitol punishment for both practical (it's too expensive to put someone to death) and moral (religious reasons) -- I find this position very difficult to justify at times. I keep hoping to hear that *MY* daughter's monster 'accidentally' fell on a pointed stick -- several times and in all honestly I will probably rejoice his death. Less because of moral outrage and a desire for revenge (but yes, that is a part of it), but that something that could still cause so much harm and pain has been removed from this earth.
"Charter schools are not homogeneous. They vary along a number of dimensions: Thus, there is no single charter school effect. These differences affect accessibility, achievement, operation, and gover- nance as our outline below suggests."
I selected the school my children attend. I did the research. They out perform our local K-5 and 6-8. 9-12 also, with the exception of the magnet program within that school.
You dismiss Charter schools based on averages and comparison -- and I see my family picking a school that works well based on a little leg work and research and picking the best.
"Truly awful teachers get canned, no problem. At least here in Colorado. "
Good for Colorado. CA, it's not so easy. LAUSD has taken a lot of flack and last year the sacked something like 100-200 "lemon" teachers. Guess what? The union has sued. And the teachers aren't "really" fired. They're in what's called "teacher jail". They basically collect a paycheck while awaiting the results of an investigation. No teachers have REALLY been fired yet.
How much resources are used to get rid if bad teachers? Our county will end up spending between $100k-over a million in litigation costs per teacher -- with most never being fired. Some will "retire" where we get to spend MORE of our resources paying them for the rest of their lives when they should be fired with cause (like sleeping in class -- can't tell you how many there were of those). Some will end up teaching at some other school in the district and very very few are actually let go.
Again, you talk about tossing more money at the problem. Again, I disagree. The teachers at our school make less than the local average for teachers. Clearly, money is not the primary factor of the discrepancy in performance.
Gotta say -- looking at the pics brought back the emotional response I felt at the time. Much more subdued (so may years later), but nonetheless, I felt the shock and dismay and I was back in my parents home watching this unfold on a 19" tube TV.
"Here's the thing: I think the problem is that our teachers aren't good enough."
I disagree -- at least in terms of solving the problem. Half the problem is that our schools can not issue consequences for disruptive behavior. Further, many parents don't issue consequences for such behavior at home, either.
The other half is getting rid of bad teachers (either because they suck or just don't care). It's next to impossible. Training is fine and I don't disagree. I just don't see it matters much if you cant realistically get rid of poor teachers to begin with. If parents and schools provided consequences, you'd solve a major part of the problem.
Lastly, you talk about tossing money at the problem. In CA, spending on schools has been out pacing inflation for what? 20 years? And the quality of education and rates of graduation have steadily dropped. I cannot accept your solution of tossing yet more money at the problem and expect some how this time it will work. You need to remember -- the numbers you often hear about how much California spends per student is misleading and grossly inaccurate. It doesn't account for capital spending or the countless bonds the generous voters have passed several times per decade adding billions to the education budget (including teachers retirement security).
"You are assuming that these two things are the biggest parts (or even major contributors) to the problem."
You are correct. And you seem to be assuming they are not.
"Getting rid of disruptive students is just a way of shoving the problem off elsewhere, so they can lower someone else's test scores. Students are going to be disruptive, no matter where you are. Good teachers with continual support from a solid administration is the way to handle it."
No. You get rid of disruptive students to best use your limited resources. Put the disruptive students in a more controlled environment together where the number of resources can be focused rather than spread out to pretty much every darn classroom in a district. And while I agree with you that "good teachers" with "solid administrators" is the way to handle it, there are too many bad teachers and apathetic admins to fix a problem that is hardwired in to the system.
"The idea of getting rid of bad teachers is a good one, but it makes a major assumption: that you will replace that teacher with a better one. This is not a safe thing to assume for several reasons. First of all, think about the kind of job teaching is. A low paying, high stress job that offers lots of vacation, but almost no recognition, and that requires ridiculous hours to do well. Doing it poorly isn't nearly as demanding (as with most things)."
Your logic here alludes me. In the "real world", if I hire someone who cannot perform their job at a certain level, I get rid of them and hire someone else. Lather, rinse, repeat. As far as pay goes, in LAUSD the average pay is something like 60k-70k per year. You seem to accept that not all teachers are bad, but you assume that it's OK for someone to do it "poorly" becasue doing so isn't "nearly as demanding" as you say. This should be unacceptable on the face of it.
"What kind of people are you going to get in this job? 1. Quality people who are incredibly committed, to the point of sacrificing money, family, and personal time for the children of strangers. 2. People who don't really care, can't find a better job elsewhere, and will do the bare minimum of work Look at that job description. Who are you going to get, primarily? Worse, teachers of the first type rarely can keep up that level of commitment, and gradually but steadily start to slip more and more into the second camp."
Again, pay in my area isn't that bad. And my kids are in a charter school. The average pay there is around $45k, I believe. And the teachers are fantastic.
"Here's what you do to fix this: 1. Pay teachers decently. Starting wages should be close to the average wage for someone with that degree. I left teaching and my income doubled."
This hasn't worked in well paid districts like LA or San Diego, or SF, why would you assume where they are underpaid?
"2. Train them much better. Require masters if you have to. I was in a highly regarded teacher ed. program and it was a joke. Every decent teacher I've talked to says the same, that their education left them woefully under-prepared."
You don't need a masters to teach well. Particularly at K-8 level and I question the need for 9-12
"3. Start valuing academics as a society. I don't really know how to do this, but showing that we value teachers by putting our money where our mouth is would be a good start."
We value VALUE, if that makes sense. Again with the money -- I won't re argue that.
"Schools aren't going to improve overnight. "
Invoking Arguendo in light of this single sentence of yours, lets assume that I'm totally wrong and you are totally right. That alone still makes a case for charter schools at least as an interim solution until the public schools are fixed. My kids should not suffer a poor schooling because "things aren't going to improve overnight". A lost year is bad. Two even worse.
"So now a 3 year old girl is going to grow up without her daddy, and you think this is a good thing? Did the thought cross your mind that maybe, just possibly, annoyance is not a good enough reason to deprive this little girl of her daddy?"
From what I read, that is a gross characterization of what happened. The suspect didn't shoot out of annoyance.
It sounds like there was a back and fourth between the two that escalated. That the victim was asked to stop texting (I assume politely, but perhaps not). They faced each other, for some reason the victim (a very tall and built guy) threw his popcorn at the old man. They were face to face. It's not out of the question that the old man shot when the victim became aggressive.
I'm not saying that's what happened exactly -- but to say the guy shot some other guy because he was annoyed is just wrong. I have mod points and I was going to 'overrate' you but I doubt anybody would understand why. I hope that others with mod points will read this and mod you down.
I fully agree with you that cheering is disturbing. Not only that, it's flat out sick. I just don't see your posting being worthy of "+5 insightful".
"This highlights exactly what is wrong with our current social structures. You kick the child out of a school because their parents don't volunteer enough? What the fuck? It is simply morally wrong to punish the child for the parent's failings. They already have a shitty lot in life due to uncaring parents and you are applauding making life even shittier for them?"
It's simply morally wrong to punish *MY* children and handicap *THEIR* education by forcing them to be taught by teachers who are either incompetent or don't care along side students who are disruptive or otherwise slow down progress of the class.
Do you know how many students have been put back in the lottery in the last 4 years? Zero. Do you know why? Because the school ATTRACTS parents who care. When a family falls short on their hours because of hardship, other parents kick it up a notch and donate some extra time in THEIR name. We're talking 40 hours over 40 weeks of school. That's an hour a week. Jobs as simple as your kid bringing home a box of "stuff" that needs to be stabled together (which you can do while watching the TV) or as complicated as working in the cafeteria or behind the beverage stand at a school event.
You FORCE that kind of involvement in the public schools somehow and trust me -- Mary or Johnny brings home a bad report card and Mommy/Daddy will help or find help. Mary or Johnny ends up getting a letter for being naughty in school, Mommy/Daddy will make sure there's consequences at home.
So, lets go back to my suggestions of untangling this nasty feedback loop if you REALLY want to change things. Or if you want, you can just look at the tip of the mountain and try and file that down while ignoring the HUGE problem beneath it. If you have parents that dont care, you're going to end up with kids that dont care. When you put them in an environment that has virtually no consequences at school *OR* home that's a recipe for raising the next generation of poverty or criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
"If she sees me and she (or the thief) shares it online, it *is* an invasion of my privacy. "
It is not intrinsically an invasion of your privacy. If it were in a place where you can ASSUME privacy (such as a restroom), then yes. But if it's an open, public place it is NOT an invasion of your PRIVACY.
In the US, we are allowed to videotape or photograph anything or anyone in public space. Private properties may prohibit it -- and if it "leaked" out due to a theft of photos or device you STILL wouldn't have had your "privacy" violated -- the owner of the private property would have.
"You might find that if you used GG here in Germany, you might find yourself confronted with a lawsuit."
The event didn't happen in Germany. It happened in the US. US law applies. This really isn't complicated.
What she sees is her privacy. If she sees you, that's not your privacy.
You may consider your anonymity at stake, but not your privacy.
Oh how I remember "movie night" a few years ago. Wife/kids would go to pop popcorn and since the file server and internet connection was wifi'd elsewhere, POOF goes the movie. Had to plan out WHEN to use the microwave before mediaportal/netflix use.
I have a dual band device. It actually allows me to have 4 separate wireless networks -- 2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 2 5g (primary and guest). I set up three (2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 1 5g). The few legacy devices I have are on the 2.4 and the rest are on 5g.
Works great. You're not going to get that functionality for $39.99... but you certainly can for under $150.
"The real problem is, you are right and the anti-union people are right. Last hired - first fired policies do nothing to protect quality teachers."
You are right. If you can't get rid of bad teachers (recent example in CA for SLEEPING in class on several occasions by SEVERAL teachers -- they're still in limbo and will most likely all "retire" with benefits so we STILL get to pay them even *IF* we finally get rid of them), then yeah -- the last hired, first fired thing is effectively meaningless.
That's well above the median pay in CA. Further, that $70 doesn't include benefits. Calculate that in and teachers are, in fact, doing VERY well in CA.
There was a time when working a "public" job meant taking lesser pay for greater benefits and retirement...
You either don't live in California or you don't really read the news much.
Republicans are effectively a non-entity in California. The republicans no longer even a speed bump on Sacramento passing anything.
While the prison guards union DOES pay to the republicans, it, like the teachers unions, pay much more to the democrats.
"Voucher will just destroy the school system, and do NOTHING to improve education. "
Good. Maybe it needs to be destroyed. And as far as "improving education", there's a REASON why parents want their kids elsewhere -- and that's because the public schools are failing in what they are designed to do.
" It's all based on the myth the private education is better."
You're wrong. It's based on the fact that when presented with a choice, parents will pick the school with the best results IN THEIR AREA. They may have a crappy public school and a less crappy charter or private school and when those are the ONLY choices, you pick the less crappy.
"Even then it's hard to say if its the educational system, or just affluent parents leading to success."
It's easy to say: It's a combination of teachers who must perform, parents who are involved and resources available to the students. With public schools, you are often missing the first two -- and if that's the case, there will NEVER be enough of the third. Nobody has unlimited resources. We need to pull out kids who either cant keep up or are too disruptive and put them where we can focus the extra resources THEY need rather than slowing down or back-peddling the bulk of the student body.
"You want to improve the school system in CA? Get rid of prop 13."
Wrong. Tossing money at the problem at the expense of tax payers (who are already overtaxed in CA) is a solution that has yet to yield results. The "reported" per student cost in CA is grossly under reported. Toss in the bond money (of which CA taxpayers have been extremely generous) and capitol expenses and the per student cost is well between 20k-30k.
BTW, you never answered my question in the previous thread where you suggested I was lying. click me
"We invoke the past every time we use one of those old maxims like 'turn up the volume""
Off topic, yes, but I'd like add that my wifes side of the family are immigrants and either naturalized Americans or residents on their way to citizenship. I hear daily the slaughter of many old sayings like the one you cite. Like "turn up the noise".
Some of it is language translations on the fly. My favorite is when my wife is angry and she wants to say something like: "Thats it! PERIOD!" What she ends up saying is "That's it! POINT!"
Now back on topic. You are right -- I do end up explaining a lot of idioms and where they derive to my kids. Or sometimes I need to explain why there is a glass TARDIS out in the middle of nowhere (old phone booth). I got a belly laugh when my daughter asked me that...
"Do you (or do you plan to) educate your kids about any particular older technologies? "
I was never taught how to knap rocks in to spear heads so I don't really think it's necessary for me to teach my kids how vacuum tubes work.
That said, my kids are pretty curious on their own. My daughter at age 10 modified a gear kit to turn a spiral in a tube to dispense dog food on a timer (not for real world applications, but for a science project) and built a circuit to set off an alarm when her drawer is opened -- granted, that started out as a kit, but she learned a bit and modified the alarm to be louder and the photocell to be more sensitive. She's also a fairly steady hand with a soldering iron now, too.
My son is more interested in how to work things rather than how things work, if that makes sense.
They just needed to land at night when it's not so hot.
Bite me.
According to Mileage Keeper (which I track my gas consumption for the last 2+ years -- and the spreadsheet I tracked before then collecting data from my ancient treo and less ancient android), my last gas bill was $50.86. I had traveled 323 miles, gas was 3.599 per gallon and my mileage was 22.8 mpg. Before that 20.9, before that, 22.7 mpg. Going back to last year when I needed to make a run from LA to Fresno I, as expected, got 27.9 mpg.
I also have the receipts for all work performed on it since 1995 (lost the earlier stuff in a fire). I keep the truck in decent shape (at least the engine -- the cab looks like a disaster), keep the tires at the right pressure, I don't have a heavy foot and I'm easy on the clutch.
click me
Which pretty much matches with what I claim.
Is there a particular reason you find the need to be a prick? Or is it instinct and/or genetics?
"We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect"
Um... no. We must have the blind ambition to push beyond some perceived limits of our intellect. Humility for our achievements -- but aggressive in our progress. I for one would like to see my great^x grand children living on another rock circling another fireball one day.
"The price of gas has literally multiplied several times in my lifetime and I'm not much older than 30. It will for your children too. Electric cars that are as or more convenient than gas powered ones will come when it costs 300 bucks to fill a tank."
I'm 46. The cheapest I ever paid for gas was around $0.85/gal. The most I've paid was about $4.99. I currently pay about $3.80. I'm looking at a 4x price increase in my driving lifetime (which is about your entire lifetime). 30 years before my first tank of gas the cost was around $0.25 per gallon. Once again, about a 4x increase (a close enough estimate, anyway). And when adjusted for inflation, was much more expensive "way back when". If that trend continues, my kids kids may be spending around $16 per gal 30 years down the road. And yes, it might hockey-stick...
You'll see behavior change before any massive adoption changes. If it costs $300 to fill a tank people will shift to walking to stuff that's less than a few miles away. Or greater bike usage for near by trips. Only when the cost of running a gas car per mile per year (including the cost of the vehicle) is greater than that of an electrical vehicle you will see a shift to a majority of electric vehicles being sold.
I'm atypical and regularly drive around 2000 mile per year. My vehicle is a 26 year old toyota pick up which gets about 22 mpg (4 banger which sees little freeway driving where it gets between 26-29 mpg).
I spend about $350 per year on gas. I own the vehicle. It costs me less than $500 in maintenance per year. Why the HECK would I spend ANYTHING for an electric car or otherwise when these are the numbers? I'd be throwing away money.
.
"We are arguing about two different things here. I am arguing about reforming the system - you are arguing about finding a good school for your kids. "
I don't think we are. The reforms you are talking about wont work -- particularly in my area. Pay of teachers is good at the public level.
click me
When benefits (which are incredibly generous) are added to the mix, it's actually a very good deal -- so I've no idea what you are talking about.
I can find numerous counter examples where schools/students perform well with average pay BELOW the average.
With regards to reforming the system, I don't disagree. Reform away. But until we can (A) get rid of teachers easier, (B) provide a choice to parents on where to PLACE their kids and (C) (don't think it's required, but certainly would help) CLOSE a failed school (let it re-open either as a charter or with new administrative/teaching staff), then I don't see reform working.
I read somewhere in this thread a very insightful observation:
click me too
"closing is a feature, not a bug".
I am totally heartless when it comes to caring if a teacher is employed or not. I care about what they get out of their class. In the same vein, if I go to McDonalds and order a cheese burger and it is brought to me more or less as I expect, great. If it comes messy, missing onions or pickles, then I don't care if the guy on the food line loses his job or not. Fix the problem or I go else where. THAT should be the reform. IT SIMPLY WORKS.
I don't think you know the definition of sociopathy.
The "disinterest" in others isn't universal in instances of death penalty cases and also very reasonable. Particularly to those who have been victims or are relatives of victims of violent crimes.
I have not only sympathy, but EMPATHY for anyone who states "no crueler than what he did to the victim". To call THAT person "no better than the bad guys" and cite it as 'sociopathic' and a 'sad state of humanity' is a gross mischaracterization and just just poor reasoning.
If I have a cancerous growth, I have it treated -- and the treatment always is to kill the cancer -- not to lock it behind the pinky-toe, feed it and keep it warm for the rest of the hosts life. I find it difficult to grant "humanity" to such monsters. I don't care if they can walk, talk, feel pain -- whatever. They have done something inhuman.
I speak as the parent of a young child who was kidnapped and brutally and repeatably raped. I also speak as someone who has been steadfastly opposed to the death penalty. I would be lying if I told you that event hasn't effected my "world view" on capitol crimes. While I still lean anti-capitol punishment for both practical (it's too expensive to put someone to death) and moral (religious reasons) -- I find this position very difficult to justify at times. I keep hoping to hear that *MY* daughter's monster 'accidentally' fell on a pointed stick -- several times and in all honestly I will probably rejoice his death. Less because of moral outrage and a desire for revenge (but yes, that is a part of it), but that something that could still cause so much harm and pain has been removed from this earth.
You should read the actual report and not just the summary. I have.
Check this out:
click me
Note that California is not listed -- nor do they do Charter by Charter check/comparison. There are Charter schools that are just terrible.
Now read this:
click me, too
Look at page 22.
"Charter schools are not homogeneous. They vary along a number of
dimensions: Thus, there is no single charter school effect. These
differences affect accessibility, achievement, operation, and gover-
nance as our outline below suggests."
I selected the school my children attend. I did the research. They out perform our local K-5 and 6-8. 9-12 also, with the exception of the magnet program within that school.
You dismiss Charter schools based on averages and comparison -- and I see my family picking a school that works well based on a little leg work and research and picking the best.
"Truly awful teachers get canned, no problem. At least here in Colorado. "
Good for Colorado. CA, it's not so easy. LAUSD has taken a lot of flack and last year the sacked something like 100-200 "lemon" teachers. Guess what? The union has sued. And the teachers aren't "really" fired. They're in what's called "teacher jail". They basically collect a paycheck while awaiting the results of an investigation. No teachers have REALLY been fired yet.
How much resources are used to get rid if bad teachers? Our county will end up spending between $100k-over a million in litigation costs per teacher -- with most never being fired. Some will "retire" where we get to spend MORE of our resources paying them for the rest of their lives when they should be fired with cause (like sleeping in class -- can't tell you how many there were of those). Some will end up teaching at some other school in the district and very very few are actually let go.
Again, you talk about tossing more money at the problem. Again, I disagree. The teachers at our school make less than the local average for teachers. Clearly, money is not the primary factor of the discrepancy in performance.
Gotta say -- looking at the pics brought back the emotional response I felt at the time. Much more subdued (so may years later), but nonetheless, I felt the shock and dismay and I was back in my parents home watching this unfold on a 19" tube TV.
"Here's the thing: I think the problem is that our teachers aren't good enough."
I disagree -- at least in terms of solving the problem. Half the problem is that our schools can not issue consequences for disruptive behavior. Further, many parents don't issue consequences for such behavior at home, either.
The other half is getting rid of bad teachers (either because they suck or just don't care). It's next to impossible. Training is fine and I don't disagree. I just don't see it matters much if you cant realistically get rid of poor teachers to begin with. If parents and schools provided consequences, you'd solve a major part of the problem.
Lastly, you talk about tossing money at the problem. In CA, spending on schools has been out pacing inflation for what? 20 years? And the quality of education and rates of graduation have steadily dropped. I cannot accept your solution of tossing yet more money at the problem and expect some how this time it will work. You need to remember -- the numbers you often hear about how much California spends per student is misleading and grossly inaccurate. It doesn't account for capital spending or the countless bonds the generous voters have passed several times per decade adding billions to the education budget (including teachers retirement security).
"You are assuming that these two things are the biggest parts (or even major contributors) to the problem."
You are correct. And you seem to be assuming they are not.
"Getting rid of disruptive students is just a way of shoving the problem off elsewhere, so they can lower someone else's test scores. Students are going to be disruptive, no matter where you are. Good teachers with continual support from a solid administration is the way to handle it."
No. You get rid of disruptive students to best use your limited resources. Put the disruptive students in a more controlled environment together where the number of resources can be focused rather than spread out to pretty much every darn classroom in a district. And while I agree with you that "good teachers" with "solid administrators" is the way to handle it, there are too many bad teachers and apathetic admins to fix a problem that is hardwired in to the system.
"The idea of getting rid of bad teachers is a good one, but it makes a major assumption: that you will replace that teacher with a better one. This is not a safe thing to assume for several reasons. First of all, think about the kind of job teaching is. A low paying, high stress job that offers lots of vacation, but almost no recognition, and that requires ridiculous hours to do well. Doing it poorly isn't nearly as demanding (as with most things)."
Your logic here alludes me. In the "real world", if I hire someone who cannot perform their job at a certain level, I get rid of them and hire someone else. Lather, rinse, repeat. As far as pay goes, in LAUSD the average pay is something like 60k-70k per year. You seem to accept that not all teachers are bad, but you assume that it's OK for someone to do it "poorly" becasue doing so isn't "nearly as demanding" as you say. This should be unacceptable on the face of it.
"What kind of people are you going to get in this job?
1. Quality people who are incredibly committed, to the point of sacrificing money, family, and personal time for the children of strangers.
2. People who don't really care, can't find a better job elsewhere, and will do the bare minimum of work
Look at that job description. Who are you going to get, primarily? Worse, teachers of the first type rarely can keep up that level of commitment, and gradually but steadily start to slip more and more into the second camp."
Again, pay in my area isn't that bad. And my kids are in a charter school. The average pay there is around $45k, I believe. And the teachers are fantastic.
"Here's what you do to fix this:
1. Pay teachers decently. Starting wages should be close to the average wage for someone with that degree. I left teaching and my income doubled."
This hasn't worked in well paid districts like LA or San Diego, or SF, why would you assume where they are underpaid?
"2. Train them much better. Require masters if you have to. I was in a highly regarded teacher ed. program and it was a joke. Every decent teacher I've talked to says the same, that their education left them woefully under-prepared."
You don't need a masters to teach well. Particularly at K-8 level and I question the need for 9-12
"3. Start valuing academics as a society. I don't really know how to do this, but showing that we value teachers by putting our money where our mouth is would be a good start."
We value VALUE, if that makes sense. Again with the money -- I won't re argue that.
"Schools aren't going to improve overnight. "
Invoking Arguendo in light of this single sentence of yours, lets assume that I'm totally wrong and you are totally right. That alone still makes a case for charter schools at least as an interim solution until the public schools are fixed. My kids should not suffer a poor schooling because "things aren't going to improve overnight". A lost year is bad. Two even worse.
"So now a 3 year old girl is going to grow up without her daddy, and you think this is a good thing? Did the thought cross your mind that maybe, just possibly, annoyance is not a good enough reason to deprive this little girl of her daddy?"
From what I read, that is a gross characterization of what happened. The suspect didn't shoot out of annoyance.
It sounds like there was a back and fourth between the two that escalated. That the victim was asked to stop texting (I assume politely, but perhaps not). They faced each other, for some reason the victim (a very tall and built guy) threw his popcorn at the old man. They were face to face. It's not out of the question that the old man shot when the victim became aggressive.
I'm not saying that's what happened exactly -- but to say the guy shot some other guy because he was annoyed is just wrong. I have mod points and I was going to 'overrate' you but I doubt anybody would understand why. I hope that others with mod points will read this and mod you down.
I fully agree with you that cheering is disturbing. Not only that, it's flat out sick. I just don't see your posting being worthy of "+5 insightful".
"It is not hard to get rid of bad teachers if you have decent administrators."
Two words: Mark Berndt. Prime example.
The only FUD being spread about unions here is yours.
"This highlights exactly what is wrong with our current social structures. You kick the child out of a school because their parents don't volunteer enough? What the fuck? It is simply morally wrong to punish the child for the parent's failings. They already have a shitty lot in life due to uncaring parents and you are applauding making life even shittier for them?"
It's simply morally wrong to punish *MY* children and handicap *THEIR* education by forcing them to be taught by teachers who are either incompetent or don't care along side students who are disruptive or otherwise slow down progress of the class.
Do you know how many students have been put back in the lottery in the last 4 years? Zero. Do you know why? Because the school ATTRACTS parents who care. When a family falls short on their hours because of hardship, other parents kick it up a notch and donate some extra time in THEIR name. We're talking 40 hours over 40 weeks of school. That's an hour a week. Jobs as simple as your kid bringing home a box of "stuff" that needs to be stabled together (which you can do while watching the TV) or as complicated as working in the cafeteria or behind the beverage stand at a school event.
You FORCE that kind of involvement in the public schools somehow and trust me -- Mary or Johnny brings home a bad report card and Mommy/Daddy will help or find help. Mary or Johnny ends up getting a letter for being naughty in school, Mommy/Daddy will make sure there's consequences at home.
So, lets go back to my suggestions of untangling this nasty feedback loop if you REALLY want to change things. Or if you want, you can just look at the tip of the mountain and try and file that down while ignoring the HUGE problem beneath it. If you have parents that dont care, you're going to end up with kids that dont care. When you put them in an environment that has virtually no consequences at school *OR* home that's a recipe for raising the next generation of poverty or criminal.
That was an awesome line. "Closing ... is a feature, not a bug".
One of the best arguments for charter vs. public I've yet to year -- and less than a dozen words.