Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Having made the wrong choice, and bought the big colonial in the 'burb with "good schools", I'm now making the right choice, and buying somewhere where I can support mediocre public schools in their drive to get better while sending my kids to private schools. Private Schools that offer generous scholarships for a sizable portion of the class to kids who'd otherwise be stuck in mediocre public schools. It's a win all the way around.

So long as the funding for those scholarships is sustained. I say our economy is still fucked, and will be dragged down once more as the effects of this tax compromise fade in the future (you can't print your way to prosperity any more than you can tax your way there, etc...). I think in 24 or so months you may see a lot of the scholarship money disappearing, and realize you have placed your kids in a school with nothing more than a crowd of similarly spoiled brats.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That I agree with, but I have to ask, Does it bear repeating? Who doesn't realize there are innumerable variables and that a one size fits all plan won't work.

Debating national education policy is silly. The solution has to be implemented subjectively, on a case by case local basis.

There's one overarching variable: class size. If you can get class size down to less than 17-18 from the 25-30 range, it makes a huge difference. The next big jump, to class sizes of less than 10, isn't feasible for public schools. Best national policy: a mandate of at least a couple hours a day in a class of 15 students or fewer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when i worked for the gov. we had performance bonuses based upon production metrics. there were several uncontrolled variables that made it easy for some to "earn" it and for others to have little chance. still, overall, it seemed to raise the overall effort.

in anything involving rating people there will be little chance of the process being perfect.

I'm not against well designe incentive pay. I am against believing that it will make all that much difference and mindful of ty's blogger's point that a poorly designed system can be counterproductive where, as here, it's not always clear that greater effort correlates with greater measured success.

I'm also skeptical about AG's redistribution of teachers as it seems to assume that context doesn't matter. That a teacher does fine in an affluent suburb may not say much about how he/she woul do in an urban setting.

To sum up, I'm not sure teachers are the problem.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So long as the funding for those scholarships is sustained. I say our economy is still fucked, and will be dragged down once more as the effects of this tax compromise fade in the future (you can't print your way to prosperity any more than you can tax your way there, etc...). I think in 24 or so months you may see a lot of the scholarship money disappearing, and realize you have placed your kids in a school with nothing more than a crowd of similarly spoiled brats.

Thank you for gracing us with the trenchant economic analysis o the catch phrase.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

A good friend was S.C. Teacher of the Year. She got to drive a BMW Z3 for a year, and Strom Thurmond got to stare at her tits when she shook his hand. She went on to get a Ph.D. in teacher education. Now she's no longer in education.

Think of all the non-relatives you know who make $60,000/year. Now think of how many of them to whom you'd entrust your child. The intersection of those two sets is "teacher," and we're doing pretty fucking good with what we have, considering the very low quality of some of the raw materials -- about the same number of people graduate H.S. capable of reading as every previous year. The nations that perennially beat us in math/science assessments are ones that leave their crack babies chained to rocks.

They gave her a car for a year? What kind of cheap shit is that? "Here's an ugly little convertible for you to tool around in for a twelve months. Yeah, we know you don't need a car, as you already have one. And we know this will wind up causing you to incur a tax bill for use of a lower middle class vanity item you don't want and would much rather receive the cash value of instead. But hey... It's a converible! And we love you! So much so we're going to let you put 15k miles on it, after which we'll take it back and sell it at auction for 75% of MSRP and you can go back to driving your Hyundia!

Did we mention the dealer gets to write off the use as a charitable donation? Yep, that's right. The only thing being 'given' here is your money, to Uncle Sam, for the tax bill! Congratulations!"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Thank you for gracing us with the trenchant economic analysis o the catch phrase.

You prove the opposite.

Exactly. Now fuck off on this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There's one overarching variable: class size. If you can get class size down to less than 17-18 from the 25-30 range, it makes a huge difference. The next big jump, to class sizes of less than 10, isn't feasible for public schools. Best national policy: a mandate of at least a couple hours a day in a class of 15 students or fewer.

No disagreement, but I'd be curious as to how that could be achieved.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Eloquent but incoherent. Everyone has a choice to homeschool (in California and Washington and many other states) and therefore the decision to send the kids to the public school is either a choice or a consequence of choices.

Excellent analogy.

The fact they "cannot" is only a statement that they value other things (such as full-time bankers' hours income of the custodial parent(s)) more highly.

I want to live in your neighborhood.

If you think of tax-supported education as being mostly about maximizing the educational potential of your own children it is often in third place behind private school and homeschooling.

Behind private schooling. Behind homeschooling with this important caveat: Only if you've shit for brains. Or the arrogance to believe you can do better than a trained professional. Which is pretty much the same thing as having shit for brains.

If, on the other hand, you see a public benefit to making other people educate their own children whether or not they are willing to make the individual choices necessary to make it happen, then a system of taxpayer-supported schools is a no-brainer.

The strawman who challenged this is duly chastened.

Your posts on this topic indicate you're mostly in the first category, so good luck with that -- a rational person would move out of an educational hellhole, perhaps someplace that pays for education at the price of being -- what was it? -- business unfriendly?

Business unfriendly? How the fuck do you connect these two? Schools are paid for primarily with property taxes. I gripe a lot about this country being business unfriendly, but I'm having a hard time taking issue with the local school board for levying a business-unfriendly tax on me and my neighboring homeowners. I'd have a lucrative lemonade stand in my gazebo if it wasn't for the motherfucking assessment that would come with it!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but I was only posting because big brain bothered to post something where a guy compared someone's incentive plan to a "salesman of the month" where the best teacher gets picked for dollars. this is so clearly a pablum for the teacher's unions and, unless the proposed plan in question was written in crayon, beneath any thinking person's garbage filter.

I have nothing to offer in reply to this. I just think it's so spot-on, so logical, and so eloquent, it deserves to be repeated. I'm having a hard time recalling a better delivered KO punch on these boards.

I only wish I'd read it earlier, so I wouldn't have made a fool of myself expending untold syllables trying, futiley, to articulate something like this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

FWIW, given that the non-experienced (hi Ty) are the ones who understand why health care didn't fuck up small business, while those of us with experience are trolls when we post about how the law will fuck up small business, I suggest that running a business and paying payroll taxes is actually detrimental for knowledge about running a business and paying payroll taxes.

no offense,

I had some clown ask for documents regarding my business's written employee guidelines in discovery recently. I said there were none and was accused of lying. This fucking idiot's never done anything but practice law, and attend law school. I fear he's going to take me to the judge, which will be amusing as hell. The dumb son of a bitch thinks every business has an employee handbook and training manual.

Newsflash, Cheech: Some folks concentrate on revenue.

Newsflash Number Two: You should use our lack of one to hammer us on cross, dipshit. It's actually a good thing for you that the company answered 'None.'

And no - he's not a kid. He's old enough to know better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So long as the funding for those scholarships is sustained. I say our economy is still fucked, and will be dragged down once more as the effects of this tax compromise fade in the future (you can't print your way to prosperity any more than you can tax your way there, etc...). I think in 24 or so months you may see a lot of the scholarship money disappearing, and realize you have placed your kids in a school with nothing more than a crowd of similarly spoiled brats.

There's truth in this for the middle of the pack in private schools. The school my eldest is going to simply jacks up the price of the education to cover scholarships - we pay what they ask, they have the best stats in the area.

The old line schools around here, like Andover and Deerfield, cover scholarships from slave and rum money, and don't care about the current economy so much.

The middle of the line schools, the places with average SATs in the mid-sixes who compete with other places with average SATs in the mid-sixes, have to decide between buying top poor students with scholarships, filling the class with middlings who pay full boat, and grabbing idiots whose families will contribute buildings and pay for the good students. In this economy, they need more idiots. This would be places like Choate, where internet Hank went. Yes, all those places will pull up the ladder anywhere from a bit to a lot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No disagreement, but I'd be curious as to how that could be achieved.

Give me a school system and make me king, and I'd make two changes overnight: (1) Every administrator has to teach. Administration is a part-time job, and we need fewer of them, not more. No exceptions. (2) Mix up the size of classes. Stick a kid in a 100 person lecture class for three hours and a 10-12 person seminar for another three hours, instead of putting them in 30 hour classes for 6 hours.

As to the school principal, I'd have every principal teach two classes, on the subject of their choice: one to incoming freshmen, in the smallest seminars possible, one to exiting seniors, same deal. Job #1 is to know the kids.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Those spendthrift Rs hating on America yet again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not against well designe incentive pay. I am against believing that it will make all that much difference and mindful of ty's blogger's point that a poorly designed system can be counterproductive where, as here, it's not always clear that greater effort correlates with greater measured success.

I'm also skeptical about AG's redistribution of teachers as it seems to assume that context doesn't matter. That a teacher does fine in an affluent suburb may not say much about how he/she woul do in an urban setting.

To sum up, I'm not sure teachers are the problem.

And whether or not a system is well-designed, the folks who are going to manage it are public school administrators, who are probably the only people who Penkse would concede are less competent than public school teachers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No disagreement, but I'd be curious as to how that could be achieved.

$$$