4 ms·

> Oh? What is this great solution you have? The courts? That takes years, at which point the teacher is unemployed and may years later receive compensation. Goo

by glenra 12y ago

> Oh? What is this great solution you have? The courts? That takes years, at which point the teacher is unemployed and may years later receive compensation. Good luck expecting that to go well. Nah, it's an institutional problem; you'd solve it with slightly different rules about how schools are run. For instance, you could give principals more autonomy over hiring/firing teachers but make it harder to fire THEM, thereby reducing the ability of nitwit politicians to exert pressure to fire particular people. You could make more of the relevant intermediary jobs (like state superintendent) nonpartisan, and make being nonpartisan an explicit part of the job. You could add more transparency to hiring/firing decisions and leave it to the voters to punish politicians who do that sort of thing - if regular elections aren't enough disincentive, then add a petition-based recall process. Or you could recognize that political sea changes at the local level don't happen often enough for this to be a significant problem, so we shouldn't worry about it until and unless it actually happens. Don't institute cures that are worse than the disease. (The fact that some district in Texas has this problem doesn't mean you need tenure everywhere in the country.) Though the real solution is more student autonomy. Let parents decide which schools to send their kids to rather than arbitrarily assigning them to a specific one and the whole issue basically goes away. If parents don't like what's being taught to their kids, make it easy for them to go elsewhere or teach the kids at home and they don't NEED to get rid of bad teachers. (When people don't like what's served at a restaurant, they don't typically lobby to fire the cook, they just eat somewhere else! Because they CAN.) Fundamentally, the purpose of a school system is to benefit the students, not the teachers. If you want to convince people tenure is a good idea, you need to make the case from that perspective - why it helps the students. Otherwise it just sounds like special pleading.

opendais 12y ago
> Nah, it's an institutional problem; you'd solve it with slightly different rules about how schools are run. For instance, you could give principals more autonomy over hiring/firing teachers but make it harder to fire THEM, thereby reducing the ability of nitwit politicians to exert pressure to fire particular people. You could make more of the relevant intermediary jobs (like state superintendent) nonpartisan, and make being nonpartisan an explicit part of the job. You could add more transparency to hiring/firing decisions and leave it to the voters to punish politicians who do that sort of thing - if regular elections aren't enough disincentive, then add a petition-based recall process. The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it. > Or you could recognize that political sea changes at the local level don't happen often enough for this to be a significant problem, so we shouldn't worry about it until and unless it actually happens. Don't institute cures that are worse than the disease. (The fact that some district in Texas has this problem doesn't mean you need tenure everywhere in the country.) I suggest you employ Google. Its a frequent problem in the South, not just Texas. > Though the real solution is more student autonomy. Let parents decide which schools to send their kids to rather than arbitrarily assigning them to a specific one and the whole issue basically goes away. If parents don't like what's being taught to their kids, make it easy for them to go elsewhere or teach the kids at home and they don't NEED to get rid of bad teachers. (When people don't like what's served at a restaurant, they don't typically lobby to fire the cook, they just eat somewhere else! Because they CAN.) Fundamentally, the purpose of a school system is to benefit the students, not the teachers. If you want to convince people tenure is a good idea, you need to make the case from that perspective - why it helps the students. Otherwise it just sounds like special pleading. And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure. Strangely, people seem to pretend that they don't exist and/or balk at the full price tag. It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due. If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid."
- glenra 12y ago
  > The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it. Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-) > And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure. What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do. > It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due. UPS and Fedex aren't legally allowed to charge less than the post office does to deliver mail nor are they allowed to carry non-urgent mail or packages. The fact that they focus on high-priced delivery options is NOT because they're cherrypicking, it's because that's the only niche they've been able to wrest legal access to. (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!) Get rid of the laws prohibiting competition with the post office, let the post office go broke if need be, and the private carriers would make money in rural areas too. Mail delivery would likely cost half as much if the private sector did it. Incidentally, it has long been the case that in some rural areas the Post Office would deliver mail to the nearest "mail stop" (which could be miles away from a home) while UPS and FedEx would drive right up to the door. >If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid." Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to.
  - opendais 12y ago
    > Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-) It elects people who believe delusional things that are not grounded in reality sometimes, doubly so at the local level. I believe in checks and balances. There are no real checks and balances at the local level except in a timespan measured in years which isn't 'acceptable'. > What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do. Providing transportation with adult supervision for single parents who need to work and don't have a car to drop the kid off with. Providing food for those that can't afford to at lunch. Etc. Things like that are part of the $13k figure. So, unless you are planning to drop all of that? > Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to. 1) Economies of Scale 2) People in wealthier areas can pay more and schools are partially funded through property tax...drum roll please...this means schools in richer neighborhoods have more money. > (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!) LOL. http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/13/postal-service-makes-profit-eliminate-services/9050879/ http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/13/pos... "Rising online shopping has sparked a jump in package revenue, while a gradually rebounding economy has stabilized mail revenue. That’s why the USPS forecasts a $1.1 billion operating profit this year. Quite simply, the package business is booming for the Postal Service." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fix-for-a-profitable-postal-service/2014/04/25/27bc7b98-cae4-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fix-for-a-profita... "In 2006, lawmakers mandated that the Postal Service do something that no other public or private entity is required to do — pre-fund future retiree health benefits. That $5.6 billion annual chargeaccounts for 100 percent of the red ink." That is simply was never true and has never been true. I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your rant.

by glenra 12y ago

opendais 12y ago

> Nah, it's an institutional problem; you'd solve it with slightly different rules about how schools are run. For instance, you could give principals more autonomy over hiring/firing teachers but make it harder to fire THEM, thereby reducing the ability of nitwit politicians to exert pressure to fire particular people. You could make more of the relevant intermediary jobs (like state superintendent) nonpartisan, and make being nonpartisan an explicit part of the job. You could add more transparency to hiring/firing decisions and leave it to the voters to punish politicians who do that sort of thing - if regular elections aren't enough disincentive, then add a petition-based recall process. The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it. > Or you could recognize that political sea changes at the local level don't happen often enough for this to be a significant problem, so we shouldn't worry about it until and unless it actually happens. Don't institute cures that are worse than the disease. (The fact that some district in Texas has this problem doesn't mean you need tenure everywhere in the country.) I suggest you employ Google. Its a frequent problem in the South, not just Texas. > Though the real solution is more student autonomy. Let parents decide which schools to send their kids to rather than arbitrarily assigning them to a specific one and the whole issue basically goes away. If parents don't like what's being taught to their kids, make it easy for them to go elsewhere or teach the kids at home and they don't NEED to get rid of bad teachers. (When people don't like what's served at a restaurant, they don't typically lobby to fire the cook, they just eat somewhere else! Because they CAN.) Fundamentally, the purpose of a school system is to benefit the students, not the teachers. If you want to convince people tenure is a good idea, you need to make the case from that perspective - why it helps the students. Otherwise it just sounds like special pleading. And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure. Strangely, people seem to pretend that they don't exist and/or balk at the full price tag. It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due. If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid."

glenra 12y ago
> The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it. Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-) > And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure. What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do. > It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due. UPS and Fedex aren't legally allowed to charge less than the post office does to deliver mail nor are they allowed to carry non-urgent mail or packages. The fact that they focus on high-priced delivery options is NOT because they're cherrypicking, it's because that's the only niche they've been able to wrest legal access to. (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!) Get rid of the laws prohibiting competition with the post office, let the post office go broke if need be, and the private carriers would make money in rural areas too. Mail delivery would likely cost half as much if the private sector did it. Incidentally, it has long been the case that in some rural areas the Post Office would deliver mail to the nearest "mail stop" (which could be miles away from a home) while UPS and FedEx would drive right up to the door. >If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid." Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to.
- opendais 12y ago
  > Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-) It elects people who believe delusional things that are not grounded in reality sometimes, doubly so at the local level. I believe in checks and balances. There are no real checks and balances at the local level except in a timespan measured in years which isn't 'acceptable'. > What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do. Providing transportation with adult supervision for single parents who need to work and don't have a car to drop the kid off with. Providing food for those that can't afford to at lunch. Etc. Things like that are part of the $13k figure. So, unless you are planning to drop all of that? > Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to. 1) Economies of Scale 2) People in wealthier areas can pay more and schools are partially funded through property tax...drum roll please...this means schools in richer neighborhoods have more money. > (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!) LOL. http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/13/postal-service-makes-profit-eliminate-services/9050879/ http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/13/pos... "Rising online shopping has sparked a jump in package revenue, while a gradually rebounding economy has stabilized mail revenue. That’s why the USPS forecasts a $1.1 billion operating profit this year. Quite simply, the package business is booming for the Postal Service." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fix-for-a-profitable-postal-service/2014/04/25/27bc7b98-cae4-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fix-for-a-profita... "In 2006, lawmakers mandated that the Postal Service do something that no other public or private entity is required to do — pre-fund future retiree health benefits. That $5.6 billion annual chargeaccounts for 100 percent of the red ink." That is simply was never true and has never been true. I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your rant.