[no02rSx2]

But, the whole point of the system as designed is that the teachers are accepting an offset in pay for job security via the contracts and tenure system. By getting rid of tenure, the teachers should be getting something in return, or there's even less incentive to accept the liability of the contract. I think that what they'll find is that fewer good candidates will be interested in teaching - it's a lot of liability to risk not being able to pay your student loans. If you can get a much better-paying job with the same degree, there's a big incentive to do so, and now less incentive to be a teacher.

okay I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning here but I do know an awful lot of teachers that are teachers because they want to be teachers. I know one educator who really takes it up the poop chute (to put it crudely) because she really enjoys her job so much.

Now for a statewide industry to assume this passion and zeal will carry the whole teaching workforce is pretty silly. I can't imagine why many teachers put up with what they do myself but at the same time I can really understand states and communities taking every measure they can to save any dollar they can here and there. Yes some of these unions are clearly suffering as political targets but that is in part because they have been part of the political opposition for so long in some areas.

[Gedominew]

okay I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning here but I do know an awful lot of teachers that are teachers because they want to be teachers. I know one educator who really takes it up the poop chute (to put it crudely) because she really enjoys her job so much.

Now for a statewide industry to assume this passion and zeal will carry the whole teaching workforce is pretty silly. I can't imagine why many teachers put up with what they do myself but at the same time I can really understand states and communities taking every measure they can to save any dollar they can here and there. Yes some of these unions are clearly suffering as political targets but that is in part because they have been part of the political opposition for so long in some areas.

You do raise a fair point - there are some people who are teachers because they've always wanted to be teachers and they teaching and all that. Generally, they're liberal arts majors (English or history or art). The passion is nice, but there's also a glut of lib arts majors who say, "shit, I got this English degree, now what? I guess I'll go into teaching." My SiL had a thought like that with her anthropology degree (thank God I talked her out of it). The school systems do kind of have their pick with that group. But, the problem is attracting the science, math, computer science, and other majors that are competitive in the market. That is where you need some sort of incentive, and they've just removed a big one and replaced it with, well, nothing. A college degree is expensive, and most of us don't get to go through school on our parents' dime. So, when we face our student loan payments, we have to take into account the long-term prospects. Job security is important if you're looking at starting somewhere between 40 and 70% lower in salary than your fellow grads.

[Greapyjeory]

You do raise a fair point - there are some people who are teachers because they've always wanted to be teachers and they teaching and all that. Generally, they're liberal arts majors (English or history or art). The passion is nice, but there's also a glut of lib arts majors who say, "shit, I got this English degree, now what? I guess I'll go into teaching." My SiL had a thought like that with her anthropology degree (thank God I talked her out of it). The school systems do kind of have their pick with that group. But, the problem is attracting the science, math, computer science, and other majors that are competitive in the market. That is where you need some sort of incentive, and they've just removed a big one and replaced it with, well, nothing. A college degree is expensive, and most of us don't get to go through school on our parents' dime. So, when we face our student loan payments, we have to take into account the long-term prospects. Job security is important if you're looking at starting somewhere between 40 and 70% lower in salary than your fellow grads.

In the short run, you're correct that subjects that teach skills or subjects connected to more profitable jobs are harder to attract teachers. Still, I would think Idaho could eventually come up with something specifically aimed at those positions that could make up for this difference.

Applying tenure across the board is a problem though.

[Gedominew]

In the short run, you're correct that subjects that teach skills or subjects connected to more profitable jobs are harder to attract teachers. Still, I would think Idaho could eventually come up with something specifically aimed at those positions that could make up for this difference.

Applying tenure across the board is a problem though.

I don't disagree. I'd say that just about anything done across the board is a bad idea.

[gusecrync]

While I agree with ending tenure, I hope that these legislatures also move to reform the policies that apply to police and firemen.

Walker left out those groups in Wisconsin, and not surprisingly, those two groups were heavy donaters to his campaign.

Nope the main union for police and firefighters donated to Walker's opposition. Today in Wisconsin UNION thugery was committed by firefighters in Wisconsin--they actually closed down a bank--because it donated to Walkers campaign.

[gusecrync]

I've been locked into contracts with clients before, I knew what I was dealing with when I signed them. Don't like a contract, don't sign it.

Well CRAP it was democrat politicians that signed agreements with the union. And as we see--the union has their hands in democrat politicians pockets and they'll sign off on anything with the union--while they're SCREWING the other taxpayers of their states.

[gusecrync]

Yep--teachers had it made with democrats in office. A guaranteed life time job--after only working 3 to 4 years at their trade--LOL That means after 3 years--they could go into a classroom--put their feet up on their desk and read a newspayer--and at that time it would have taken an official act of congress to get rid of them.

The party is OVER. The rest of us---pay and job security depend on merit. If you're bad at what you do--you're gone.

[flowersnewacq]

I'm sorry, but that's just the stupidest way of paying teachers.

If I'm a teacher who gets paid based on how students perform, my class is going to finish with A's in every subject, every single year.

of course tha is how you work, that is how the unions work, you belive in doing nothing and getting paid.
but how you can judge is when the kids you gave A's to? it is easy they have no clue in the next grade and they all fail while other teachers students get A's. that would show you are a terrible teacher and do not deserve to be a teacher any longer thus they can fire you.
the system you like says this
everyone in your classes fail consitently at the next grade, here is a pay raise, here are all your bonuses here, is your pension see you again next year for more of the same.

[Greapyjeory]

Nope the main union for police and firefighters donated to Walker's opposition. Today in Wisconsin UNION thugery was committed by firefighters in Wisconsin--they actually closed down a bank--because it donated to Walkers campaign.

I stand corrected. The unions didn't support him, but the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association and the Milwaukee Police Association did.

Either way, Walker had a vested interest in protecting both groups because of that. Of course, as you said, the supporters of the unions among both groups clearly don't support Walker.

I suppose support for Walker among police and firemen overall is mixed.

[xtrudood]

I'm sorry, but that's just the stupidest way of paying teachers.

If I'm a teacher who gets paid based on how students perform, my class is going to finish with A's in every subject, every single year.

If you can do that with standardized tests then you'd deserve high pay.

[Gedominew]

If you can do that with standardized tests then you'd deserve high pay.

Teaching students to do well on a standardized test is not real teaching.

[Greapyjeory]

Teaching students to do well on a standardized test is not real teaching.

I'm sure every state is different, but the problem with standardized testing in my state is that these state-administered tests are usually so easy compared to the level of education instructed in many cities that it's a pretty low standard to measure with.

The reason the standardized tests are so easy compared to the regular curriculum is that they have to keep standards low to be fair to the areas with worse education systems.

So, if a student can't pass a standardized test, that might have less to do with the teacher and more to do with the student or with the outside issues a student faces.

Under normal conditions, even a remotely competent teacher should be able to get a kid to pass a standardized test, but of course, several students and teachers don't operate under "normal conditions."

[xtrudood]

Teaching students to do well on a standardized test is not real teaching.

Its the most objective measure available.

[Gedominew]

I'm sure every state is different, but the problem with standardized testing in my state is that these state-administered tests are usually so easy compared to the level of education instructed in many cities that it's a pretty low standard to measure with.

The reason the standardized tests are so easy compared to the regular curriculum is that they have to keep standards low to be fair to the areas with worse education systems.

So, if a student can't pass a standardized test, that might have less to do with the teacher and more to do with the student or with the outside issues a student faces.

Under normal conditions, even a remotely competent teacher should be able to get a kid to pass a standardized test, but of course, several students and teachers don't operate under "normal conditions."

The CSAP tests used in CO were quite the opposite. The tests were so arbitrary and so poorly written that nobody could figure out what the hell they were trying to evaluate. They would throw out tests for all sorts of random reasons, and the questions were bizarre. Overall, the test was a nightmare, and clearly not a real measure of much of anything (as is so often the case with these kinds of tests).

Its the most objective measure available.

Objective measure of what, is the problem. Test design is an incredibly difficult challenge, especially across multiple populations and subjects. Predictably determining that you are evaluating what you think you are evaluating is extremely difficult, especially when you don't have any feedback sessions with the evaluated.

(assuming you attended college) Think back to college time - going through tests with your professors. How many times were there arguments with the prof because a question was poorly written, or the answer unclear? Now, in more esoteric evaluations, those tests become harder and harder to determine that you are actually writing questions and evaluating answers in such a way to get the information that you seek.

[xtrudood]

Objective measure of what, is the problem. Test design is an incredibly difficult challenge, especially across multiple populations and subjects. Predictably determining that you are evaluating what you think you are evaluating is extremely difficult, especially when you don't have any feedback sessions with the evaluated.

(assuming you attended college) Think back to college time - going through tests with your professors. How many times were there arguments with the prof because a question was poorly written, or the answer unclear? Now, in more esoteric evaluations, those tests become harder and harder to determine that you are actually writing questions and evaluating answers in such a way to get the information that you seek.

For grade schools standardized tests for the "three R's" is fairly straightforward. Prior to graduating college I took an 8-hour nationally standardized test to evaluate my knowledge of the fundamentals of my profession. Several years later I took another 8-hour nationally standardized test to evaluate my knowledge of the principles and practices of my profession. All professions that I know do this to some degree, so why is it different for high school students?

[Gedominew]

For grade schools standardized tests for the "three R's" is fairly straightforward. Prior to graduating college I took an 8-hour nationally standardized test to evaluate my knowledge of the fundamentals of my profession. Several years later I took another 8-hour nationally standardized test to evaluate my knowledge of the principles and practices of my profession. All professions that I know do this to some degree, so why is it different for high school students?

Several reasons:

1) There are significant cultural biases inherent in the way tests are written.

2) You had a motivation to perform well on your exam. Thus, you worked your ass of for that 8 hours. What motivation does a high schooler have to do so?

3) Effective testing is remarkably expensive to perform and evaluate. Who's going to pay for it?

[xtrudood]

Several reasons:

1) There are significant cultural biases inherent in the way tests are written.

2) You had a motivation to perform well on your exam. Thus, you worked your ass of for that 8 hours. What motivation does a high schooler have to do so?

3) Effective testing is remarkably expensive to perform and evaluate. Who's going to pay for it?

1. Ridiculous. Reading is reading, writing is writing and math is math.
2. A good grade in the class.
3. As I recall, my exam fee was about $100 for each 8-hour exam. That's cheap.

[Gedominew]

1. Ridiculous. Reading is reading, writing is writing and math is math.

Language is regional, not universal. Sorry you don't like it.

2. A good grade in the class. Grades are subjective
3. As I recall, my exam fee was about $100 for each 8-hour exam. That's cheap. So, you've got how many students in school? That's a lot of $100 tests. Also, what was your test? Was it possibly subsidized?

[xtrudood]

Language is regional, not universal. Sorry you don't like it.

Grades are subjective

So, you've got how many students in school? That's a lot of $100 tests. Also, what was your test? Was it possibly subsidized?

1. Wrong. If that were true different versions of books would have to be sold throughout the country.
2. You ax'd for the incentive and I gave you it.
3. There's no shortage of money in the education system. Get rid of the US DOE and replace it with a half-dozen employees who distribute standardized tests.

You seem curious about my education. Why?

[Gedominew]

1. Wrong. If that were true different versions of books would have to be sold throughout the country.

Well, you're latched on to your opinion, and it's not worth the effort to try to shake you loose. But, you're dead wrong. There's plenty of research demonstrating language bias in testing and the results that it has.

2. You ax'd for the incentive and I gave you it. You gave one that was worthless.


3. There's no shortage of money in the education system. Get rid of the US DOE and replace it with a half-dozen employees who distribute standardized tests. Oh, you're one of those.



You seem curious about my education. Why? No, I was curious about the test that you took.