more on teachers

Quote:No, we just have to know things that actually matter. Stats are so misleading that you can "prove" anything.

It's truly amazing that in an industry that's driven by statistics, so many of it's practitioners are so totally ignorant of the science of statistics. It's also illuminating that the folks that claim statistics can be manipulated to show anything are the ones that know absolutely nothing about statistical science.

Numbers are often mislabeled as statistics and used to mislead the gullible and to try to "prove anything".

Statistics are not misleading at all. Statistics are what numbers turn into after having been processed through the rigorous filter of statistical science.






Quote:I've given you stats - you shot them down and said they were invalid or something to that effect.
You've given us numbers that had in no way been processed through statistical mathematical testing. Your "numbers" were #1 incomplete (used 5 instead of 15 states), #2 used invalid sample rates (comparing the top 4% of one state to the top 70% of another state), #3 measured test scores of only college bound students, and #4 then claimed to show causation between the statistically invalid test scores of college bound seniors and the false set (5) of states, to the quality of public education in collective bargaining and non-collective bargaining states.

I've only been able to "shoot down" your "stats" because they weren't "stats" at all, they were just numbers designed to fool the gullible.

You (or anyone else) haven't been able to "shoot down" my stats because the stats I quote come from sources that rigorously use statistical science on the raw data (numbers) in order to come up with those "stats". If you followed the links you would find that my source is in fact usually the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences' National Center For Education Statistics, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the U.S. Census, etc. If you follow the links you will see that in each case they provide not only the analysis, but the raw data, methodologies, and controlling factors, that they used to reach their conclusions. In other words they basically invite anybody to check their work.

Using statistics from unimpeachable sources who invite anybody to check their results pretty much guarantees that my statistics can't be shot down.

That's as opposed to your numbers where the sources of your data say that the analysis you cited is invalid.

Here's one for you jeffo, in examining the NAEP scores for 8th graders nationwide, the average scores for math/science/reading/writing in the 15 states that don't have union collective bargaining do better than the 35 states that do have collective bargaining.

Does that mean that those numbers show that curtailing collective bargaining will improve your kids scores? Absolutely NOT. They show absolutely NOTHING about collective bargaining one way or another because #1 averaging those raw scores is not a statistically valid methodology, #2 there is no causal link shown between collective bargaining and quality.

Until that raw data is assessed using scientifically valid mathematical formulae and methodology, it's just numbers, not statistics.




Quote:There are LOTS of very good teachers in the public schools who bust their asses every day for their students.

Absolutely true, but if you take the worlds best auto workers and put them on the assembly line of a Yugo factory, the result will still be a poorly designed car.

Would you advocate forcing everybody to buy that car?

Would you advocate using taxpayer money to keep that factory open?

How would you feel about the union who had enormous influence in ensuring that everyone had to buy their car, that the car's design worsened instead of improving, and that the factory remained open? Would you be alright with the union and it's influence because it represented those excellent auto workers?

Of course the reality is that some of the workers will be excellent, some average, and some poor quality, and that unionization generally produces a higher cost and/or a lower quality product (and yes I can provide valid statistics to show that).
 
I'm not going to defend the teachers unions. I'm also not going to say the public schools do a better job than the private schools. Personally, I think a parent should be able to opt out of public education and not be taxed for it. I also believe teachers should be paid based on their merit and not simply the number of years they have worked. I will say though, that most union members are not aware of what their locals are up to...they pretty much go along to get along.

Flawed as the public system is, it is still controlled by a local board of education where the little guy still has a voice...or at least the little guy still has a voice in our community. Our board members are still accountable to the People and the staff is still very much accountable to our board; but I live in a small, rural community. I know this is not the case everywhere. Every penny and benefit a district employee receives has been negotiated and approved by a locally-elected board.

I can sleep well at night knowing my childrens' teachers are not teaching them the Communist Manifesto or Homosexuality 101. I know many of the teachers personally, and for the most part, we share the same core values.

We still say the Pledge and-don't tell anyone, but- we even pray at some school functions. Are they learning as much as they might at the parochial school in the big town 35 miles away? Probably not, but I couldn't afford to send them even with a voucher, AND it is a parent's responsibility to assume responsibility for their child's education. I don't mind a portion of my taxes supporting our district.

We even have a not-for-profit foundation where members donate money to support the district. We have built a top-notch athletic facility through fund raising activities and private donations.

From a high school with approximately 400 kids, we have produced several doctors, lawyers, CPAs, corporate executives, an NBA player and coach, an NFL player and coach, a Saint Louis Cardinal, I drank beer this weekend with an old buddy who is a nuclear engineer who told me of another old classmate that is now a professor of microbiology at the University of Iowa...we're doing alright, as are many public school districts.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying we agree in principle, but I do think public education can work. It could be better for sure, but it can and does work, especially when there is a strong relationship between the school and the local community. I also do not believe privatization is the only answer...I just don't think it's feasible for a lot of us. Believe me, I'm a Libertarian so I've thought long and hard about it...I just don't see a 100% private system working. Eliminating tenure is the most realistic measure I think we can take to improve the system.
 
Last edited:
Many rural districts do pretty well, largely because the school board is elected by people who know them personally. I moved to small town NM (312 students k-12) for exactly that reason.

Contrast that with urban districts where school board candidates have to run a regular campaign to get the votes of strangers, and then throw in the factor of school board candidate's campaigns being financed by the unions.

If the system were completely privatized (vouchered), your school would still be exactly the same (assuming the other parents feel as you do). The only change would be that their operating funds would come from you instead of from the government.

The legal result of that would be that the government would no longer have control of your school, you would. That is the primary reason to privatize.

You begin to see the problem with making any changes to the current system. The government is legally required to control anything they fund directly, and then factor in the control the unions have by "electing their own bosses" from the local board level up to the federal level and that's a large hurdle.
 
My son's CRT tests (grade school) are coming up soon. I asked him about it and he said that the teacher has been going over the test and the correct answers all week. He's not learning anything but the teacher sure is gonna look like she's doing a good job of teaching. B.S. He's gonna start home school after this year is out.
 
Originally Posted By: Savage250My son's CRT tests (grade school) are coming up soon. I asked him about it and he said that the teacher has been going over the test and the correct answers all week. He's not learning anything but the teacher sure is gonna look like she's doing a good job of teaching. B.S. He's gonna start home school after this year is out.

You can thank the federal government for that one. That is a consequence of NCLB. Instead of addressing the real issue of teacher accountability by eliminating tenure, they over emphasized standardized testing which causes teachers to teach the tests.

My kid comes home memorizing study guides all the time. I don't like it, so I try to ask her to use higher order thinking skills and think critically about what she is doing and try to apply the knowledge to something real.

That is a really good example of what happens when bureacrats try to over-regulate things. The law of unintended consequences inevitably kicks in and bites us all in the rear end.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NM LeonMany rural districts do pretty well, largely because the school board is elected by people who know them personally. I moved to small town NM (312 students k-12) for exactly that reason.

Contrast that with urban districts where school board candidates have to run a regular campaign to get the votes of strangers, and then throw in the factor of school board candidate's campaigns being financed by the unions.

If the system were completely privatized (vouchered), your school would still be exactly the same (assuming the other parents feel as you do). The only change would be that their operating funds would come from you instead of from the government.

The legal result of that would be that the government would no longer have control of your school, you would. That is the primary reason to privatize.

You begin to see the problem with making any changes to the current system. The government is legally required to control anything they fund directly, and then factor in the control the unions have by "electing their own bosses" from the local board level up to the federal level and that's a large hurdle.

I agree 100% that federal and state bureacrats should butt out of our schools.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NM LeonHere's one for you jeffo, in examining the NAEP scores for 8th graders nationwide, the average scores for math/science/reading/writing in the 15 states that don't have union collective bargaining do better than the 35 states that do have collective bargaining.

Does that mean that those numbers show that curtailing collective bargaining will improve your kids scores? Absolutely NOT. They show absolutely NOTHING about collective bargaining one way or another because #1 averaging those raw scores is not a statistically valid methodology, #2 there is no causal link shown between collective bargaining and quality.

Until that raw data is assessed using scientifically valid mathematical formulae and methodology, it's just numbers, not statistics.

I happened on this one jeffo. Apparently there IS a statistically valid relation between collective bargaining and education quality...but it's NEGATIVE.
lol.gif


LOOK HERE FOR THE STUDY

Here's Dr Hoxby talking about the reasons why collective bargaining lowers educational quality.


 
Yep, maybe the the most coherent quote is, "You have to have the flexibility to pay teachers more when their students are doing better cause you have to retain them".

Of course that's anathema to unions (and some union advocate teachers).
 
As usual, I find myself completely in agreement with Leon on this issue.

I have a few random thoughts:

RANDOM 1. 'Look for, the union work ethic...' The union mindset is antithetical to what we want influencing our kids.

Item: Protesting WI teachers just did ~$7.5 million dollars in damage to the marble at the Capitol.

Item: Dawg's post yesterday showing CA unionized teachers protesting in favor of a cop-killer and waving gay rights flags.

...and the horror stories go on and on, I've seen them posted in here for years, the list is both lengthy and shocking to the conscience.

The union mentality is one of victimization and negativity. It promotes a bitterness and weak self-image on its members against 'management.' This is the LAST thing kids should be exposed to, kids need to be around optimistic people who will challenge and encourage them to be positive and strive for greatness.

I would posit that the presence of even a low, but significant, number of these union-mentality, leftists in front of kids creates so many outrageous incidents that the majority good, dedicated teachers' efforts become far less noticeable. As a kid, one of my dad's favorite sayings when I'd mess up was, 'Son, one aaw S&*t cancels out 100 attaboys!' (Anybody else here have a dad like that?).

Teachers often tell me they consider themselves professionals. Great! Lose your unions and I'll look at you as one. Being a professional and being a unionist are mutually exclusive. Pick one.

RANDOM 2. 'What about grandpa?' The argument has appeared in this thread, as it often does, 'you can't expect us to do as well as private schools because we HAVE to take ALL the horrible, bad, stupid, retard kids!' (Note: My youngest son is high-functioning autistic, I say 'retard' tongue-in-cheek).

My response to this is simply to point out that government schools have been taking such children from their inception. So, why did they used to do so much better with so fewer financial resources? As a local history writer, I have frequent exposure to the writings of kids in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries and if you guys could see how well these kids could write and think--their command of math and history, you would be amazed. I've seen era lesson plans and they were ALL about practical skills, no time for liberal indoctrination or feel-goodism. I can assure you that a high school grad of 1935 could do much more than a BA of 2011. Admittedly, the 1935 kid did not have as high self-esteem as the 2011 kid, but he could find X a lot faster.

I would argue that various Liberal pedagogical 'reforms', the creation of the Department of Education in 1979 (Essentially a de facto federal school board that has worked hard to eliminate local control of schools) and the rise of uber-Leftist union monopoly (ie NEA and, to a lesser extent AFT) have been the culprits.

RANDOM 3. 'Where the boys are..' Because of the reasons cited above, the schools and those who control them have swung to the far left over the past four decades. Liberalism encompasses a hit parade of various causes under its umbrella, from the anti-gun/hunting kookism, to the oh-so-confused gay rights crowd to the ethnic victimization cults. But one of the strongest of liberalism pillars has long been the ladies in comfortable shoes: the gender feminists. And make no mistake, the impact of feminist thought in education has had a devastating impact on boys.

Feminist influence in the legal system and the public morality has resulted in shocking numbers of fatherless boys. Divorce has become easy and women, who comprise the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs, are typically rewarded for destroying their family by being awarded most of the property, monthly payment called 'child support' they can spend on whatever they desire, and custody of the children despite the ~40 years of socio-scientific data which show that boys and girls do best when they are raised in the home with their dad. Mom's new bf or subsequent husband, on the other hand, is THE most likely person, statistically, to molest or otherwise physically and/or mentally abuse those kids the court gave her. Feminism has made great progress in making sure boys are not around their dads much and, sorry, 'visitation' every other weekend doesn't do the trick. Thanks feminism!

Then at school, boys are placed under the influence of liberal thinking, which is at its core feminine: ie is it emotion-based as opposed to reason based (masculine thinking). This feminine thinking does not value masculine attributes and attempts to stifle boys' natural male impulses. Recesses, that boys need to run and play and burn off their energy, are being done away with. Competitive sports are falling into disfavor and healthy competition is considered harmful--look at how many absurd kids' sports organizations now refuse to keep score! In the school system, boys are given the message that being a boy, and later a man, is a bad thing. Remember high school rifle teams? Where'd they go?

Ever notice how these days TV shows and movies all seem to portray fathers as simple minded buffoons and it is the mothers who are so, so smart? How's that as a great message?

And look at the teachers union's war on the Boys Scouts of America, a group that serves the needs of boys better than any other I can think of. Why, the teachers hate the BSA because of its COMMON SENSE refusal to allow homosexuals to be around the boys...HELLO, DUH!!!

Thanks to all this we now have fewer boys than girls graduating high school and far fewer graduating college. Teen male suicide rates are sky high. As I see more and more young men who can't really do much in a practical way beyond a video game controller and have been brainwashed into feminine thinking processes, ie emotional, illogical, etc., I worry deeply about the future. News flash to school policy makers: It is OK to be a man, in fact it is GOOD!

To me, this kind of damage is unacceptable and we need to radically reform how we educate kids and what and who we allow them to be exposed to.
 
Last edited:
You seem to have a distinct dislike for females. Unless they're in their place. Your comparison of a 1935 student to a 2011 student is laughable. Maybe Palin, a female, will set things right. Until then, keep holding on, my friend. Archie Bunker is cheering for you.
 
Quote:You seem to have a distinct dislike for females. Unless they're in their place. I don't read his comments as that, at all...

It's the overall concept that Jeff was stating....I've seen something similar in the low income housing over the past 40 years...The father disappears (only comes around on weekends) and the kids are almost totally raised by the female part of the community...When we had disturbances in that area, I could send a female officer as part of the team and she had better respect and response by the subjects than the male officers...

IMHO, his observations are basically correct...as is Leon, about the influence of the local, rural school boards vs. larger urban areas...My teachers (town of 3,000) were held to high local standards in the 1940s and 1950s when compared to the standards applied to the teachers (male or female) today...and their production efforts (student knowledge) demonstrate the fact..
 
NM Leon said:
Many rural districts do pretty well, largely because the school board is elected by people who know them personally. I moved to small town NM (312 students k-12) for exactly that reason.

Contrast that with urban districts where school board candidates have to run a regular campaign to get the votes of strangers, and then throw in the factor of school board candidate's campaigns being financed by the unions.

If the system were completely privatized (vouchered), your school would still be exactly the same (assuming the other parents feel as you do). The only change would be that their operating funds would come from you instead of from the government.

The legal result of that would be that the government would no longer have control of your school, you would. That is the primary reason to privatize.



Just for fun, what do you think would happen if every school were completely controlled by the locals? I've said for years that big government needs to get out of education. Would we be better off if ALL of our children were homeschooled? Some would be, no doubt. Private education has promise. But certainly not for everyone. There are too many stupid people who would want to be in charge, (much like now), and would shove their agendas down the kids' throats. I have little (but some) doubt that YOUR private school (if you ever dared to try teaching children every day) would produce top notch students, except maybe in the art of data consumption and selective regurgitation. The rest of the country would know when the beans are ripe, why cousin Lilly is Daddy's favorite, and taxes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Quote:Just for fun, what do you think would happen if every school were completely controlled by the locals?

We already have a pretty good indication of what would happen jeffo.

In 1950 there were 83,642 school districts. We spent $2,376 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) per student and High school graduates in 1950 had an education level equal to a baccalaureate degree today. That was local control.

Today there are 14,598 school districts, we spend over $10,000 per pupil, and educational quality has deteriorated precipitously. That's state and federal government control, as lobbied for by the teachers unions.





Quote:Would we be better off if ALL of our children were homeschooled? Some would be, no doubt. Private education has promise. But certainly not for everyone. There are too many stupid people who would want to be in charge, (much like now), and would shove their agendas down the kids' throats.
Certainly homeschooling isn't for everyone, but why not private schools?

If we privatized the entire system and went to 100% vouchers, the government control would be gone (the Supreme Court has already ruled), as would union influence to a large degree.

Your school would almost certainly still exist, though possibly reorganized as a non-profit organization.





Quote:I have little (but some) doubt that YOUR private school (if you ever dared to try teaching children every day) would produce top notch students, except maybe in the art of data consumption and selective regurgitation. The rest of the country would know when the beans are ripe, why cousin Lilly is Daddy's favorite, and taxes.
Why thank you jeffo, that's quite a compliment. I'd like to think that if I started a school the students would be top notch, and I'm glad you agree. I'd expect that the students would be avid consumers of data (to find facts), though I'd leave the selective regurgitation to the unions.

I suspect the overwhelming majority of the other schools would be pretty good too, or else they wouldn't survive long in the marketplace.

If you want to teach about beans ripening, and your favorite cousin, or selective regurgitation, go for it. I can certainly understand you wanting to stick with what you know.

You might not find many parents willing to pay you to teach that stuff in an open marketplace where they have a choice though.


 
This members account was accessed WITHOUT his consent by a banned member:

HYPERWRX

As per KODIAK61's request, the contents of this post have been deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:Shows your grasp of parental involvement in education these days. 85% of parent on a whole have absolutely no clue what is being taught to their children. They're either too busy with work or plain and simple, their interests lie elsewhere.
Since you used a definitive percentage, I would assume that you have a peer reviewed analysis or scientifically rigorous poll to back up your statement?

Not that I doubt that you do indeed have the means to back your assertion up, it's just that it seems to be contradicted by this "90 Percent of JCPS Parents Favor Diverse Schools, Survey Says", and this "Poll: Majority of Milwaukee residents favor school choice expansion", and this "Seventy-Four Percent Want Program Reauthorized by Congress", or Charter Schools Have Broad Bipartisan Support, but maybe those polls (and numerous others) were just outliers and "on the whole" you're right and 85% of parents don't care.

With the push for parental school choice in vouchers and charters in Milwaukee, IN, OH, PA, MT, etc, we'll see just how disinterested parents are though, won't we. If your contention is right then the maximum percentage of parents wanting to apply for the programs will be 15%.

In any case, I guess we'll be able to judge for ourselves when you post a link to the study supporting your assertion won't we.





Quote:One thing all parents have in common though is the ability to pass the buck when accountability comes into play. Nothing is their fault.
Hmmm...Sounds like an accurate description of some of the teachers and teachers union supporters we've had posting back here.

Care to make a wager as to whether or not educational outcomes per dollar spent will improve with parental choice?
 
This members account was accessed WITHOUT his consent by a banned member:

HYPERWRX

As per KODIAK61's request, the contents of this post have been deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I try not to "interpret" data, instead finding the data and analyses compiled and interpreted by peer reviewed professional statisticians.

Sorry if that doesn't comport with some folk's fantasies or myths, but objective fact is still objective fact.

Back to your assertion of fact, just where did you get the "85% of parent on a whole have absolutely no clue what is being taught to their children. They're either too busy with work or plain and simple, their interests lie elsewhere.", or was that just another example of "calling them like you see them"?
 
Back
Top