|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2015 08:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 08:39 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 08:31 KwarK wrote:On December 10 2015 08:25 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 05:37 frazzle wrote:On December 10 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 02:53 ragz_gt wrote:On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote:
Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy. Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions). Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant. The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind. The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.) As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history. Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all: "Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?" A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch. Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job. McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it. Are you aware of the Venona cables? Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union? There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe. Really? You think that perhaps it could be argued that they might have targeted innocent people? And you think I'm painting it as black and white? Jesus. Their criteria for targeting people was about as broad as Trump's. They targeted innocent people. I'm not arguing that they did, they just did, that's a historical fact. There is no perhaps, there is no might. You're using the same apologist language that death penalty advocates use when you show them conclusive proof that they just executed an innocent man. It's nonsense. A tiny subset of communists were spies but the majority of McCarthy's targets weren't even communists and even if they were it still wouldn't justify it because there is nothing wrong with being a communist.
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
When the Communist Party is under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union and actively preaches the destruction of America and actively recruits spies in the US government, then yes, there is something wrong with an government official being part of that party or having strong connections to it. We were in a state of war and there was a political party that was actively using our free-speech laws and traditions of political tolerance against us, hiding behind constitutional protections so that they could actively work to bring down that same constitution and the Republic.
There is nothing illegal about being a communist. There is something very illegal about being a communist spy for the Soviet Union. McCarthy addressed that issue. Not always perfectly, and yes mistakes were almost certainly made. Much of that blame falls on the liberals of the day, who insisted (and still insist) that there were NO communist spies and that there was no connection between the USSR and the Communist Party. Their (imo bordering on treasonous) white-washing of a very serious and immediate threat was part of why McCarthy and Republicans had a very difficult time sorting through who was just a communist and who was an actual spy.
|
On December 11 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:47 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 11 2015 02:12 Plansix wrote:
Just remember that according to the internet, someone’s personal beliefs shouldn’t disqualify them from being President or their ideas from consideration. Everything should be viewed “objectively” and you shouldn’t take into account that Ben Carson believes the world could end in like 15 years and science is a lie.
And if a hobo tells you the best cure for the flu is to drink a pint of brandy, you should review his suggestion objectively and test it to see if its valid. How did you feel about Carson saying he wouldn't support a Muslim being President? The exact same way I would if someone said a buddhist couldn't be president. I would think they didn't know what they were talking about.
Seventh Day Adventists are out, but Muslims are in?
|
hey, if you believe that the world is going to end and you are in charge of the worlds most dangerous army, what could possibly go wrong? If you don't like pork on the other hand, that could pose a serious threat to the nation!
|
United States44442 Posts
On December 11 2015 04:00 Nyxisto wrote:
hey, if you believe that the world is going to end and you are in charge of the worlds most dangerous army, what could possibly go wrong? If you don't like pork on the other hand, that could pose a serious threat to the nation!
Hell, take climate change. Sea levels cannot rise because God made a covenant with Noah that he would never again flood the earth. So why worry?
|
On December 11 2015 03:57 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:On December 11 2015 03:47 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 11 2015 02:12 Plansix wrote:
Just remember that according to the internet, someone’s personal beliefs shouldn’t disqualify them from being President or their ideas from consideration. Everything should be viewed “objectively” and you shouldn’t take into account that Ben Carson believes the world could end in like 15 years and science is a lie.
And if a hobo tells you the best cure for the flu is to drink a pint of brandy, you should review his suggestion objectively and test it to see if its valid. How did you feel about Carson saying he wouldn't support a Muslim being President? The exact same way I would if someone said a buddhist couldn't be president. I would think they didn't know what they were talking about. Seventh Day Adventists are out, but Muslims are in?
Yeps. Scientologist too. And people who believe the earth is flat or the moon landing was faked. There are a long list of beliefs that will very quickly make me not vote for someone.
|
he never made a promise about famine, disease or unbreathable air though
also mccarthy... so much for innocent until proven guilty
|
On December 11 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:47 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 11 2015 02:12 Plansix wrote:
Just remember that according to the internet, someone’s personal beliefs shouldn’t disqualify them from being President or their ideas from consideration. Everything should be viewed “objectively” and you shouldn’t take into account that Ben Carson believes the world could end in like 15 years and science is a lie.
And if a hobo tells you the best cure for the flu is to drink a pint of brandy, you should review his suggestion objectively and test it to see if its valid. How did you feel about Carson saying he wouldn't support a Muslim being President? The exact same way I would if someone said a buddhist couldn't be president. I would think they didn't know what they were talking about.
He didn't say couldn't... he said he 'wouldn't support'... You don't have to ignore someone's religion when deciding if you will vote for/endorse them.
I'd disagree with his position (since "Muslim" is far too broad a description of someone's beliefs to be really useful) but he wasn't talking about a religious test.
|
United States44442 Posts
On December 11 2015 03:56 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 08:48 KwarK wrote:On December 10 2015 08:39 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 08:31 KwarK wrote:On December 10 2015 08:25 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 05:37 frazzle wrote:On December 10 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 10 2015 02:53 ragz_gt wrote:On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote:
Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy. Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions). Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant. The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind. The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.) As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history. Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all: "Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?" A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch. Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job. McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it. Are you aware of the Venona cables? Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union? There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe. Really? You think that perhaps it could be argued that they might have targeted innocent people? And you think I'm painting it as black and white? Jesus. Their criteria for targeting people was about as broad as Trump's. They targeted innocent people. I'm not arguing that they did, they just did, that's a historical fact. There is no perhaps, there is no might. You're using the same apologist language that death penalty advocates use when you show them conclusive proof that they just executed an innocent man. It's nonsense. A tiny subset of communists were spies but the majority of McCarthy's targets weren't even communists and even if they were it still wouldn't justify it because there is nothing wrong with being a communist. Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent? When the Communist Party is under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union and actively preaches the destruction of America and actively recruits spies in the US government, then yes, there is something wrong with an government official being part of that party or having strong connections to it. We were in a state of war and there was a political party that was actively using our free-speech laws and traditions of political tolerance against us, hiding behind constitutional protections so that they could actively work to bring down that same constitution and the Republic. There is nothing illegal about being a communist. There is something very illegal about being a communist spy for the Soviet Union. McCarthy addressed that issue. Not always perfectly, and yes mistakes were almost certainly made. Much of that blame falls on the liberals of the day, who insisted (and still insist) that there were NO communist spies and that there was no connection between the USSR and the Communist Party. Their (imo bordering on treasonous) white-washing of a very serious and immediate threat was part of why McCarthy and Republicans had a very difficult time sorting through who was just a communist and who was an actual spy.
I already named one, Oppenheimer. You may have heard of him.
Incidentally Oppenheimer's association with the communist party wasn't spying. Back during his time at Berkeley the swimming pools were white only for 5 days, on the 6th day they let blacks in and on the 7th day they changed the water. The communist party held a protest over this and Oppenheimer went.
Also, as has already been explained, McCarthy gave cover for genuine spies by being a paranoid lunatic. His obsession rendered actual spies and patriotic Americans who disagreed with things like segregation impossible to tell apart because to him they were all the same enemy. His opposition to free speech and free political expression were a greater danger to the US and the constitution than the spies ever were.
|
On December 11 2015 04:08 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:On December 11 2015 03:47 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 11 2015 02:12 Plansix wrote:
Just remember that according to the internet, someone’s personal beliefs shouldn’t disqualify them from being President or their ideas from consideration. Everything should be viewed “objectively” and you shouldn’t take into account that Ben Carson believes the world could end in like 15 years and science is a lie.
And if a hobo tells you the best cure for the flu is to drink a pint of brandy, you should review his suggestion objectively and test it to see if its valid. How did you feel about Carson saying he wouldn't support a Muslim being President? The exact same way I would if someone said a buddhist couldn't be president. I would think they didn't know what they were talking about. He didn't say couldn't... he said he 'wouldn't support'... You don't have to ignore someone's religion when deciding if you will vote for/endorse them. I'd disagree with his position (since "Muslim" is far too broad a description of someone's beliefs to be really useful) but he wasn't talking about a religious test.
I may have mis-spoken, but I am of the opinion that I will not vote or believe anyone who makes that claim is qualified to be President.
|
On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html
What does this have to do with Common Core? Isn't Common Core a states standard that has nothing to do with the federal govt?
|
On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes.
Also, you should (once again) consider looking at other countries, at least to see what is possible.
For example, in Germany, teachers are pretty much unfireable after 1-3 years. And i don't mean american levels of "hard to fire" i mean "You have to murder someone to get fired" unfireable. Furthermore, evaluation of a teacher is usually only done by the school headmaster, and quite irregularly (Like once a year he sits in a class for one lession) (Of course if a class is really subpar that might happen more often). Pay is only VERY loosely linked to performance (If you perform well, you may get a position as the guy who is in charge of a school subject like maths, or possibly even headmaster, which are paid more. Other than that, there are two levels of pay, one for entry level teachers, and one for teachers after a few years)
Now, i am not saying that this is necessary ideal. However, it works quite well, at least as good as the US system, and possibly even better if PISA can be trusted. And all of that despite all these horrible spectres like being hard to fire that people in the US think will bring the end of the world.
|
On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes.
You are buying a bill of goods if you think teachers were graded on their students' raw scores at the end of the year. It was a comparative metric compared to the previous year performance of those students. It is a perfectly good teacher evaluation metric, with the flaw being inconsistent tracking of students, so random assignment can hurt a teacher's score in an individual year, but should not long term.
Also, the attack on standardized testing, as a concept, is just the worst trend. My high school was, and continues to be happy with conducting a single standardized test for its students each year, and I graduated almost a decade ago. Standardized tests are amazing judges of learning (AP tests, are some of the best written tests I have ever taken, significantly more comprehensive and much better at judging the core concepts of a curriculum than almost anything I was given in high school, and most of the tests I took in College/Law School.
These standardized testing horror stories happen at a minority of schools, and get promulgated incessantly because teachers have become, systemically, "aggrieved" and love to air their grievances in public, and media outlets such as the NYT love to publish OP-EDs by teachers about "Why I Quit Teacher After 10 Years" (Subtitle, It was crushing my soul). These teachers, somehow unironically, complain that they are not being valued enough (usually the false talking point of low pay), while also arguing that metrics that attempt to calculate their value are unfair because they don't really affect how a student learns much (nearly 100% correct, they do not, in fact, provide much marginal value to students).
|
On December 11 2015 04:17 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What does this have to do with Common Core? Isn't Common Core a states standard that has nothing to do with the federal govt?
Its not mandated any more. States can still use it if they want, but some have stepped away in favor of other methods.
|
The main problem is the trend towards using standardized tests to do things they were not designed to do without even thinking about how appropriate it is.
Some standardized tests are designed to evaluate teacher performance. It makes sense to use these tests to evaluate teacher performance.
Some standardized tests are designed to evaluate student performance or improvement. Just aggregating these test schools by class and using them to evaluate teachers is not a good idea, especially if you don't actually validate it for.
|
On December 11 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes. You are buying a bill of goods if you think teachers were graded on their students' raw scores at the end of the year. It was a comparative metric compared to the previous year performance of those students. It is a perfectly good teacher evaluation metric, with the flaw being inconsistent tracking of students, so random assignment can hurt a teacher's score in an individual year, but should not long term. Also, the attack on standardized testing, as a concept, is just the worst trend. My high school was, and continues to be happy with conducting a single standardized test for its students each year, and I graduated almost a decade ago. Standardized tests are amazing judges of learning (AP tests, are some of the best written tests I have ever taken, significantly more comprehensive and much better at judging the core concepts of a curriculum than almost anything I was given in high school, and most of the tests I took in College/Law School. These standardized testing horror stories happen at a minority of schools, and get promulgated incessantly because teachers have become, systemically, "aggrieved" and love to air their grievances in public, and media outlets such as the NYT love to publish OP-EDs by teachers about "Why I Quit Teacher After 10 Years" (Subtitle, It was crushing my soul). These teachers, somehow unironically, complain that they are not being valued enough (usually the false talking point of low pay), while also arguing that metrics that attempt to calculate their value are unfair because they don't really affect how a student learns much (nearly 100% correct, they do not, in fact, provide much marginal value to students).
The states and schools would like to be able to assess teachers on their own terms, rather than have them mandated by the Federal Government and providing an one size fits all test to do so. If the Federal government wants to mandate some standards, start with class room size and work their way down. Schools were firing shitty teachers before standardized testing was invented. And the system is loathed by the entire profession as the opposite of the learning process and states are still able to employee it if they want. But they are no longer required to.
|
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
And here's me, thinking that one good thing that came of the US is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. You don't (need to) prove that they were innocent. He had to proof that they were not. Not the other way around. Can you provide evidence that they were innocent, lol. How about you provide evidence that they were, in fact, not innocent? Because that's kinda how it works, instead of asking others to debunk stupid accusations?
|
On December 11 2015 04:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes. Also, you should (once again) consider looking at other countries, at least to see what is possible. For example, in Germany, teachers are pretty much unfireable after 1-3 years. And i don't mean american levels of "hard to fire" i mean "You have to murder someone to get fired" unfireable. Furthermore, evaluation of a teacher is usually only done by the school headmaster, and quite irregularly (Like once a year he sits in a class for one lession) (Of course if a class is really subpar that might happen more often). Pay is only VERY loosely linked to performance (If you perform well, you may get a position as the guy who is in charge of a school subject like maths, or possibly even headmaster, which are paid more. Other than that, there are two levels of pay, one for entry level teachers, and one for teachers after a few years) Now, i am not saying that this is necessary ideal. However, it works quite well, at least as good as the US system, and possibly even better if PISA can be trusted. And all of that despite all these horrible spectres like being hard to fire that people in the US think will bring the end of the world.
Well, its also, in many ways, a crisis created and invented by the teachers themselves (so they can secure additional funding). If you compare Germans in America to Germans in Germany, their performance tracks similarly, or even higher in America, and that is true across a wide spectrum of countries.
On December 11 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes. You are buying a bill of goods if you think teachers were graded on their students' raw scores at the end of the year. It was a comparative metric compared to the previous year performance of those students. It is a perfectly good teacher evaluation metric, with the flaw being inconsistent tracking of students, so random assignment can hurt a teacher's score in an individual year, but should not long term. Also, the attack on standardized testing, as a concept, is just the worst trend. My high school was, and continues to be happy with conducting a single standardized test for its students each year, and I graduated almost a decade ago. Standardized tests are amazing judges of learning (AP tests, are some of the best written tests I have ever taken, significantly more comprehensive and much better at judging the core concepts of a curriculum than almost anything I was given in high school, and most of the tests I took in College/Law School. These standardized testing horror stories happen at a minority of schools, and get promulgated incessantly because teachers have become, systemically, "aggrieved" and love to air their grievances in public, and media outlets such as the NYT love to publish OP-EDs by teachers about "Why I Quit Teacher After 10 Years" (Subtitle, It was crushing my soul). These teachers, somehow unironically, complain that they are not being valued enough (usually the false talking point of low pay), while also arguing that metrics that attempt to calculate their value are unfair because they don't really affect how a student learns much (nearly 100% correct, they do not, in fact, provide much marginal value to students). The states and schools would like to be able to assess teachers on their own terms, rather than have them mandated by the Federal Government and providing an one size fits all test to do so. If the Federal government wants to mandate some standards, start with class room size and work their way down. Schools were firing shitty teachers before standardized testing was invented. And the system is loathed by the entire profession as the opposite of the learning process.
Yes. All true. And, like I said, they can continue to do that if we get back to a common sense, local funding-local control system. With lobbying for the Department of Education, teachers consciously chose dollars over autonomy. Until the NEA and NFT lobby against its existence, they dont have a leg to stand on.
|
On December 11 2015 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:17 frazzle wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What does this have to do with Common Core? Isn't Common Core a states standard that has nothing to do with the federal govt? Its not mandated any more. States can still use it if they want, but some have stepped away in favor of other methods.
As far as I can tell, Common Core was never mandated. The only link I can find is that some federal grants went to states based on whether or not they had adopted unspecified standards. I suppose Common Core could qualify as such a standard.
Here are my sources: FindLaw, Dept. Education Race to the Top Program
Maybe I have missed something?
|
On December 11 2015 04:34 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:17 Simberto wrote:On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes. Also, you should (once again) consider looking at other countries, at least to see what is possible. For example, in Germany, teachers are pretty much unfireable after 1-3 years. And i don't mean american levels of "hard to fire" i mean "You have to murder someone to get fired" unfireable. Furthermore, evaluation of a teacher is usually only done by the school headmaster, and quite irregularly (Like once a year he sits in a class for one lession) (Of course if a class is really subpar that might happen more often). Pay is only VERY loosely linked to performance (If you perform well, you may get a position as the guy who is in charge of a school subject like maths, or possibly even headmaster, which are paid more. Other than that, there are two levels of pay, one for entry level teachers, and one for teachers after a few years) Now, i am not saying that this is necessary ideal. However, it works quite well, at least as good as the US system, and possibly even better if PISA can be trusted. And all of that despite all these horrible spectres like being hard to fire that people in the US think will bring the end of the world. Well, its also, in many ways, a crisis created and invented by the teachers themselves (so they can secure additional funding). If you compare Germans in America to Germans in Germany, their performance tracks similarly, or even higher in America, and that is true across a wide spectrum of countries. Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On December 11 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 11 2015 03:11 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:In the subject of real political news, No Child Left Behind has been altered to make more sense and removed the requirement for teacher performance being tied directly student performance. States can now make their own performance assessment plans, rather than test students into the grounds. And Common Core is pretty much done. Rejoice to the end of one size fits the entire nation education. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article48961030.html What I don't get about the education complainers, is what did you expect from federal funding for education? That they would just give free money away with no strings attached? Of course they were going to tie it to generalized, mundane, and occasionally nonsensical rules. Plus, I mean, if teachers aren't comfortable being evaluated on student performance, that seems pretty telling about their perception of their own value. Well, not all students are created equal. There are plenty of problems with teacher's unions and stuff, but at the end of the day teachers are craftsmen of varying skill with materials (students) of varying quality and temperament. Note: I don't want to make students seem like a commodity or product, but I think the analogy is okay. I think we really need an emphasis on using better teaching methods, like those which have been validated by research and such instead of focusing so much on outcomes. You are buying a bill of goods if you think teachers were graded on their students' raw scores at the end of the year. It was a comparative metric compared to the previous year performance of those students. It is a perfectly good teacher evaluation metric, with the flaw being inconsistent tracking of students, so random assignment can hurt a teacher's score in an individual year, but should not long term. Also, the attack on standardized testing, as a concept, is just the worst trend. My high school was, and continues to be happy with conducting a single standardized test for its students each year, and I graduated almost a decade ago. Standardized tests are amazing judges of learning (AP tests, are some of the best written tests I have ever taken, significantly more comprehensive and much better at judging the core concepts of a curriculum than almost anything I was given in high school, and most of the tests I took in College/Law School. These standardized testing horror stories happen at a minority of schools, and get promulgated incessantly because teachers have become, systemically, "aggrieved" and love to air their grievances in public, and media outlets such as the NYT love to publish OP-EDs by teachers about "Why I Quit Teacher After 10 Years" (Subtitle, It was crushing my soul). These teachers, somehow unironically, complain that they are not being valued enough (usually the false talking point of low pay), while also arguing that metrics that attempt to calculate their value are unfair because they don't really affect how a student learns much (nearly 100% correct, they do not, in fact, provide much marginal value to students). The states and schools would like to be able to assess teachers on their own terms, rather than have them mandated by the Federal Government and providing an one size fits all test to do so. If the Federal government wants to mandate some standards, start with class room size and work their way down. Schools were firing shitty teachers before standardized testing was invented. And the system is loathed by the entire profession as the opposite of the learning process. Yes. All true. And, like I said, they can continue to do that if we get back to a common sense, local funding-local control system. With lobbying for the Department of Education, teachers consciously chose dollars over autonomy. Until the NEA and NFT lobby against its existence, they dont have a leg to stand on.
There are a lot of problems with the ways schools were funded and most are still under funded. Teachers are underpaid in comparison to other civil servants and there are a lot of mandates from all sectors. But testing them into the ground isnt' part of the solution.
One of our friends works as a speech therapist in the local school system. The amount of work she brings home and does just to meet the federal requirements is disgusting. Truly gross. But without the federal funding like 20-30 kids wouldn’t have speech therapy and would just have to fend for themselves. And the school is mandated to provide it and the local government can’t afford it. There is no other option for them and that is the reality.
Of course, no one is going to make the harsh decision of fuck those kids, because no one wants to be that level of bad guy. But people want to make sure those Federal dollars are being used correctly, so have them fill out paperwork until the end of time.
|
On December 11 2015 04:34 cLutZ wrote: If you compare Germans in America to Germans in Germany, their performance tracks similarly, or even higher in America, and that is true across a wide spectrum of countries.
You mean students willing to uproot and move across half the world to study are more dedicated then the average student?
Next your going to tell me the earth isn't flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
