LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 222
0 members and 222 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-30-2006, 05:16 PM   #11
baltassoc
Caustically Optimistic
 
baltassoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The City That Reads
Posts: 2,385
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
In California we had a move to smaller class sizes. We had a Republican governor (Wilson) who pushed for a limit of thirty students up to the seventh grade. That was pushed through. The idea was to limit all classes in California to thirty students - in other words move the rule up to Junior High School and High School) but the new Democrat governor (Davis) decided not to push it through the upper grades. They just decided to increase spending (which they did dramatically) but let the bureaucracy decide what was best, and so the class reduction effort was stopped. So now in California elementary class sizes are limited to thirty but not so in Junior High and High School.

Of course the increase funding didn't improve anything. The new Republican governor, the Governator, tried to push tenuring of public school teachers back to four years from two years and the teachers association put together a huge war chest and defeated his efforts.

In California the single biggest block to good education reform is the California Teachers Association and their Democrat allies.
30? Wow. Decreasing class size is a laudable goal. I didn't realize it was that bad in California. It would appear that California needs to hire about half again as many teachers (dropping to 20 students per class). Good luck with that. (Alternatively, I suppose, they could just kick out a third of the students.)

I think that one has to step back for a moment and consider what each side's objections really are. I can't speak for the CTA (and wouldn't want to), but my problem is not with standardized tests (which I think are important) but rather with what is done with that information. Low performance is punished, not fixed.

Think of it this way: you have a school that's doing badly. Its scores are going down, not up. So you slash its funding. Now it's going to get better?

In private enterprise, underperformers wither and die and are replaced by more efficient market entrants. That doesn't quite work with public schools.
__________________
torture is wrong.
baltassoc is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 AM.