Hulver's site || Proposition 74?

Proposition 74?

Yes	1 vote - 33 %
No	2 votes - 66 %

3 Total Votes

Proposition 74 | 25 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

the real problem with education: by dr k (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 04:06:55 PM EST

parents. Teach your damn kid to read.

:| :| :| :| :|

: why bother by LilFlightTest (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 04:26:01 AM EST

it's the school's job, remember? also, school is where a kid is supposed to learn respect, and manners, and everything else the parents can't be bothered to do with their child.
------

[ Parent ]

Money by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 04:58:29 PM EST

The argument in favor of the initiative, printed in the ballot handbook, implies that it will get more money into the classroom...

That sounds like an admission that the ease of firing would be used to get rid of high salary experienced teachers to solve budget issues.

My own anecdotal high school experience was of two abysmally bad teachers (including an english teacher who was not a native english speaker and who did not know simple grammar rules that I did at 15) who were essentially ignored while another, an amazing teacher who was one of the reasons I got a 5 on the AP bio test, was hounded out because the administration didn't like him.

As such, I'm dubious that making it easier to fire teachers would actually get incompetent teachers out. (And Gord knows they are there.) I do think it needs to be easier because I know that now the process is so difficult that even obviously incompetent teachers are left in simply because it is too much trouble to get them fired. But I don't destroying the system is the answer.

But the change from two to five years worries me more. If this passes, I am convinced that there will be districts in this state where teachers are be routinely let go just before their fifth year is up. Worse, the districts where this will happen will mostly be in districts serving poor communities as they are the ones with the biggest money crunches. So, in essense, the kids with the biggest issues will be taught by the teachers with the least experience. That's smart.

(This is already a huge problem...experienced teachers already flee the poor districts. If Arnold was really interested in improving educational quality, he should offer $10k/year combat pay to teachers who move from high-scoring districts to low-scoring districts.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

Would that help? by mrgoat

(2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 06:02:30 PM EST

Low scoring districts score low for reasons beyond having bad teachers, I'm sure. I believe a lot of them are in areas where the entire surrounding community is in pretty bad shape.

I just think that if kids are already growing up in an environment where stealing spark plugs off motorcycles for use as crack pipes is more highly regarded than knowing what "wherefore art thou" means, then paying the teachers a lot is more likely to get them mugged frequently than to really improve test scores.

I agree with the sentiment, but I bet you need more than highly paid (and presumably very good) teachers to get the level of education up.

--top hat--
[ Parent ]

"Bad teachers" by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 06:59:31 PM EST

I think you just want the best teachers where the problems are the worst.

Where I live, there's a very bad dynamic because few teachers want to work in Oakland (poor area) and most teachers want to live in Walnut Creek (yuppie area). So what tends to happen is that Walnut Creek gets lots of applicants and so hires people with experience. Teachers just breaking in have troubles getting jobs, and go to Oakland. As soon as they get a year or two experience, they get jobs in places like Walnut Creek. The end result is that Oakland, with less parental support and a crappy environment ends up with lots of inexperienced teachers while Walnut Creek, with more parental support and a good environment, ends up with lots of experienced teachers.

Perversely, initiatives like Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act make teachers even more apt to want to flee low-performing districts for fear that their pay and/or continued employment will be tied to test scores.

I agree that's only one of many things that need to happen in places like Oakland.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

I'll agree with that. by mrgoat

(4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 07:36:31 PM EST

And add that the skills necessary to make a difference to really low scoring districts are probably very different from the skills needed to make a difference, or even keep the same scores, in an already high scoring district.

Would it even matter if you took a Walnut Creek teacher with 12 years, and put them in Oakland, regardless of how much extra you paid them? I'll bet it's a whole different set of problems to deal with. A teacher in Oakland may need to literally dodge bullets, while a Walnutter might not have that experience.

I guess we've also got to consider the fact that it may very well be worth quite the pay cut just to get out of a crappy area. I had a band director in high school once, who turned down a large increase in pay (about 25,000 a year, I hear), and a promotion, just to stay where the music program was already good, instead of going where he'd have to start making it good.

We also need to consider where this hypothetical money would be coming from. Why would a rich family want their money going to bootstrap improvements in a poor community? I agree that it would be long term good for all, but Robin Hood isn't going to win a race for any public office anytime soon. Monied votes count more than unmonied ones, since our system allows monied peoples to buy the votes of unmonied peoples through various forms of coercion and media-based manipulation.

I guess I digressed there for a while, but I've had a few rums and surely you'll forgive me. We agree that the best teachers belong where they're needed the most, and that those places are where the problems are the worst, I just wanted to add that the best teachers for bad districts might be the worst teachers for good ones and vice-versa, so any blanket policy meant to attract the best teachers may be doomed to fail, in the face of a complex problem with a very, very complex solution.

Now, if there's some way to identify the teachers who will have the most impact on improving education for the poorer areas, and to pay those teachers more to attract them to the places where they're needed, I'm all for it. 'Course, the fact that you're paying them more may make them less effective in those areas too.

I dunno. I guess it's a giant class-warfare money-based clusterfuck of the poor.

--top hat--
[ Parent ]

it's not so simple by martingale (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 09:15:25 PM EST

I think you just want the best teachers where the problems are the worst.

You're missing some variables when you suggest this. It's not clear that such a best teacher will output a more valuable student if the student lives in a poor neighbourhood than if the student lives in a rich neighbourhood.

As an extreme case, suppose such a best teacher either teaches a poor kid who will end up robbing a bank and spending 20 years in prison, as opposed to teaching Bill Gates Jr who will employ thousands of people in his daddy's company.

Imagine you have one excellent teacher and one mediocre teacher, and you can choose which one gets to teach the bank robber, and which one teaches BG Jr. The measurable benefits will be higher if the excellent teacher teaches BG Jr.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Honestly by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 07:19:55 AM EST

I disagree with your premise. I don't think anyone's destined to rob banks.

On the other hand, I think that there are lots of kids who are headed that way, who could be diverted.

Honestly, someone like BG Jr. I'd give the mediocre teacher. Why? Because a) he gets lots of parental support and b) he is bright and is more likely to succeed without help. IMHO, whether BG Jr. gets an excellent teacher or a mediocre one makes little difference. On the other hand, I believe that the difference between a mediocre teacher and excellent one can change the course dramatically for a poor, disadvantaged kid.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

premises by martingale (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 05:58:31 PM EST

There's nothing in BG's genes that makes his kid a bright fellow. A rich fellow, sure, but not necessarily bright. Both BG Jr and a kid in a poor neighbourhood are likely to follow a conditional path determined by the statistics of their upbringing.

There's more prosecuted crime in poor neighbourhoods than rich neighbourhoods, that's a fact. A single kid may turn bad or not in either place, but in the aggregate, a poor kid is destined to lose out simply by growing up in the wrong place without the benefit of wealthy parents.

So if one takes into account these likelihoods, then good teachers are simply wasted on the poor. Sure, improving teachers across the board is a good idea, but taking a good teacher away from a rich kid is a bigger loss to American society than letting that teacher influence a poor kid to escape crime.

It's not an egalitarian point of view, but it makes perfect sense in a corporate world. Every little bit of extra teacher talent that BG Jr gets will be translated into corporate wealth and jobs which forms the backbone of American society and trickles down to its other citizens, whereas even if the poor kid is wildly successful, he can never impact society the same way BG Jr could if BG Jr got the teacher, and not the poor kid. When I say "will", I of course mean on balance from a statistical point of view.

What you seem to be arguing for is a society with different values, where people are valued equally and the majority of people ought to be able to live a good life. In that context, lowering BG Jr's performance by giving him a less able teacher while helping a poor kid live a good life makes sense, but it's a much more socialist vision than what America's experiment is doing, I think.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

I disagree completely by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:44:03 PM EST

My point is that a Bill Gates Jr. is very likely to succeed even with mediocre teachers while a poor kid may only succeed with good teachers. My belief is that for Bill Gates Jr. having a mediocre teacher isn't going to change much. He's still going to have parents with shitloads of money and probably have the support he needs to get into college, and from there, business.

I think the likelihoods are the opposite of what you say. I think that sending good teachers to poor areas is more "bang for the buck".

Having a crappy teacher is not going to stop Bill Gates Jr. from getting into college, however, having a good teacher may help one poor kid get into Harvard on scholarship. And that one poor kid may have the talent to change society far more than someone who happens to have a rich father.

The fact that there is more prosecuted crime in poor areas show how important it is as educated people are far less likely to commit crimes.

I'm arguing for a society where we attempt to give all kids the best start we can. I had thought we lived in a country where we tried to start people off equal, and where parent's wealth wasn't the sole driver of value to society. If that is socialist, so be it.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

succeed at what? by martingale (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 07:34:46 PM EST

There are plenty of examples of 2nd/3rd generation wealthy individuals who mismanage the family wealth and end up much poorer, but not before they've seriously affected the lives of their employees. Education is just as important for them as it is for everyone.

He's still going to have parents with shitloads of money and probably have the support he needs to get into college, and from there, business.

We seem to be talking about different things. You emphasize the individual's life, I'm emphasizing the individual's impact.

A company like Microsoft supports thousands of people directly, and is the lynchpin of the whole PC industry world wide. Literally millions of people world wide have their livelihoods linked to Microsoft's behaviour for better and worse.

Obviously BG Jr first has to go to kindergarten before he'll get to influence the company, but the point is that these rich kids are in positions of power. Yes they have the benefit of a support network, but the point is that if they mismanage their wealth it's the little people whose lives are in upheaval. If a poor kid mismanages his wealth, his family gets hurt and that's it.

Having a crappy teacher is not going to stop Bill Gates Jr. from getting into college, however, having a good teacher may help one poor kid get into Harvard on scholarship. And that one poor kid may have the talent to change society far more than someone who happens to have a rich father.

No, I don't accept that. That's American Dream balloney on many levels.

They might both end up in Harvard, but BGJr has the money to take decisions, while the poor kid is just a manager without money. He might accumulate wealth over time, but meanwhile he doesn't have the freedom to manage company affairs against the wishes of the real owners unless he's an owner too.

That said, chances are that they don't both end up at Harvard. The good teacher has a 100% chance of influencing a Harvard graduate if he teaches the rich kid, but has maybe a 1% or less chance of influencing a Harvard graduate if he teaches a random poor kid. The average payoff is just not comparable.

I'm arguing for a society where we attempt to give all kids the best start we can. I had thought we lived in a country where we tried to start people off equal, and where parent's wealth wasn't the sole driver of value to society. If that is socialist, so be it.

Well, you've got to choose which kid gets the benefit. Whatever choice you make, you can't give all kids the best start, someone is going to be stuck with the lesser able teachers unless you figure out how to make the top teachers take care of all children.

If you're looking for statistical equality at school level, the best way to achieve this is by employing teachers at random schools. Sometimes, a good teacher will end up teaching poor kids, sometimes he or she will teach rich kids. But of course it also means that teachers can't choose where they want to work, and the State has to guarantee equality through suitable legislation. This is how it works in some European and former Soviet countries, but it's also not very flexible because teachers (both school and university) tend to be stuck where they are posted and institutions don't have a say in who they employ.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Sorry by ucblockhead

(4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:28:21 PM EST

I just couldn't disagree more. I firmly believe that teacher quality impacts disadvantaged kids far more than advantaged kids.

My claim is that teacher quality has a trivial effect on a rich kid's future and a massive effect on a poor kid's future.

You're claim seems to be that teacher quality effects both kids equally. I just don't buy that premise.

I'm not looking for statistical equality at all. I'm looking at producing the most bang for the buck. And I am convinced that concentrating on poor kids is far better for society as a whole than concentrating on rich kids. Because rich kids will have roughly the same effect on society either way, but poor kids may change from having a negative effect to a positive effect with the right prod at the right time.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

fair enough by martingale (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:35:14 PM EST

My claim is that teacher quality has a trivial effect on a rich kid's future and a massive effect on a poor kid's future.

We don't always have to agree ;-) But note I didn't say I'm measuring the kid's future, I'm measuring the effect on society of the kid's future actions.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

: Well by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 04:50:50 AM EST

You can take it as given that I think "effect on kid" == "effect on kid's future actions re: society".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

WIPO: by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 08:33:03 PM EST

I would if I could.
California's educational "system" [!] needs to be re-booted.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.

Proposition 74 | 25 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: