Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prop 30 also modifies the constitution to require a fixed percentage of the budget be spent on police as well.
I don't see that anywhere. Can you provide a link? I see where it guarantees funds for public safety services realigned from state to local governments, but don't see where it changes anything permanently. http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/gener...m-analysis.pdf
38 sounds worse to me. That would tax ALL of us for the next 12 years, although it claims it would send 60% of the $10 billion yield to schools through 2017. Prop 30 taxes only upper incomes and increases state sales tax temporarily (7 years) and, by state law, 40% of what the state takes in has to go to schools. Neither is well written but the alternative is frightening.
Imagine the National Football League in an alternate reality. Each player's salary is based on how long he's been in the league. It's about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he's an All-Pro quarterback or the last man on the roster. For every year a player's been in this NFL, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Tom Brady and the worst player in the league is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct.
Let's face the truth about this alternate reality: The on-field product would steadily decline. Why bother playing harder or better and risk getting hurt?
No matter how much money was poured into the league, it wouldn't get better. In fact, in many ways the disincentive to play harder or to try to stand out would be even stronger with more money.
Of course, a few wild-eyed reformers might suggest the whole system was broken and needed revamping to reward better results, but the players union would refuse to budge and then demonize the reform advocates: "They hate football. They hate the players. They hate the fans." The only thing that might get done would be building bigger, more expensive stadiums and installing more state-of-the-art technology. But that just wouldn't help.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the NFL in this alternate reality is the real-life American public education system. Teachers' salaries have no relation to whether teachers are actually good at their job—excellence isn't rewarded, and neither is extra effort. Pay is almost solely determined by how many years they've been teaching. That's it. After a teacher earns tenure, which is often essentially automatic, firing him or her becomes almost impossible, no matter how bad the performance might be. And if you criticize the system, you're demonized for hating teachers and not believing in our nation's children.
Inflation-adjusted spending per student in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend more per student than any nation except Switzerland, with only middling results to show for it.
Over the past 20 years, we've been told that a big part of the problem is crumbling schools—that with new buildings and computers in every classroom, everything would improve. But even though spending on facilities and equipment has more than doubled since 1989 (again adjusted for inflation), we're still not seeing results, and officials assume the answer is that we haven't spent enough.
These same misguided beliefs are front and center in President Obama's jobs plan, which includes billions for "public school modernization." The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We've been spending billions of dollars on school modernization for decades, and I suspect we could keep on doing it until the end of the world, without much in the way of academic results. The only beneficiaries are the teachers unions.
Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally catching on that our federally centralized, union-created system provides
no incentive for better performance. If anything, it penalizes those who work hard because they spend time, energy and their own money to help students, only to get the same check each month as the worst teacher in the district (or an even smaller one, if that teacher has been there longer). Is it any surprise, then, that so many good teachers burn out or become disenchanted?
Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We've destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out. As one of my coaches used to say, "You don't get vast results with half-vast efforts!"
The results we're looking for are students learning, so we need to reward great teachers who show they can make that
happen—and get rid of bad teachers who don't get the job done. It's what we do in every other profession: If you're good, you get rewarded, and if you're not, then you look for other work. It's fine to look for ways to improve the measuring tools, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Our rigid, top-down, union-dictated system isn't working. If results are the objective, then we need to loosen the reins, giving teachers the ability to fulfill their responsibilities to students to the best of their abilities, not to the letter of the union contract and federal standards.
Imagine the National Football League in an alternate reality. Each player's salary is based on how long he's been in the league. It's about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he's an All-Pro quarterback or the last man on the roster. For every year a player's been in this NFL, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Tom Brady and the worst player in the league is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct.
Let's face the truth about this alternate reality: The on-field product would steadily decline. Why bother playing harder or better and risk getting hurt?
No matter how much money was poured into the league, it wouldn't get better. In fact, in many ways the disincentive to play harder or to try to stand out would be even stronger with more money.
Of course, a few wild-eyed reformers might suggest the whole system was broken and needed revamping to reward better results, but the players union would refuse to budge and then demonize the reform advocates: "They hate football. They hate the players. They hate the fans." The only thing that might get done would be building bigger, more expensive stadiums and installing more state-of-the-art technology. But that just wouldn't help.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the NFL in this alternate reality is the real-life American public education system. Teachers' salaries have no relation to whether teachers are actually good at their job—excellence isn't rewarded, and neither is extra effort. Pay is almost solely determined by how many years they've been teaching. That's it. After a teacher earns tenure, which is often essentially automatic, firing him or her becomes almost impossible, no matter how bad the performance might be. And if you criticize the system, you're demonized for hating teachers and not believing in our nation's children.
Inflation-adjusted spending per student in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend more per student than any nation except Switzerland, with only middling results to show for it.
Over the past 20 years, we've been told that a big part of the problem is crumbling schools—that with new buildings and computers in every classroom, everything would improve. But even though spending on facilities and equipment has more than doubled since 1989 (again adjusted for inflation), we're still not seeing results, and officials assume the answer is that we haven't spent enough.
These same misguided beliefs are front and center in President Obama's jobs plan, which includes billions for "public school modernization." The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We've been spending billions of dollars on school modernization for decades, and I suspect we could keep on doing it until the end of the world, without much in the way of academic results. The only beneficiaries are the teachers unions.
Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally catching on that our federally centralized, union-created system provides
no incentive for better performance. If anything, it penalizes those who work hard because they spend time, energy and their own money to help students, only to get the same check each month as the worst teacher in the district (or an even smaller one, if that teacher has been there longer). Is it any surprise, then, that so many good teachers burn out or become disenchanted?
Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We've destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out. As one of my coaches used to say, "You don't get vast results with half-vast efforts!"
The results we're looking for are students learning, so we need to reward great teachers who show they can make that
happen—and get rid of bad teachers who don't get the job done. It's what we do in every other profession: If you're good, you get rewarded, and if you're not, then you look for other work. It's fine to look for ways to improve the measuring tools, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Our rigid, top-down, union-dictated system isn't working. If results are the objective, then we need to loosen the reins, giving teachers the ability to fulfill their responsibilities to students to the best of their abilities, not to the letter of the union contract and federal standards.
While I am not in favor of tenure, I think this is a lousy analogy.
The obvious difference is that players are judged by their own performance not someone else's performance. While coaches have to rely on their players they have latitude to bench underperforming players, fire them if their contract is up, or get new players via a draft or a trade.
Teachers don't have these kinds of options when it comes to students, they have to deal with the kids that they get.
While I am not in favor of tenure, I think this is a lousy analogy.
The obvious difference is that players are judged by their own performance not someone else's performance. While coaches have to rely on their players they have latitude to bench underperforming players, fire them if their contract is up, or get new players via a draft or a trade.
Teachers don't have these kinds of options when it comes to students, they have to deal with the kids that they get.
But surely there must be some way of determining who are the good teacher and who aren't. Heck, most kids could tell you.
But surely there must be some way of determining who are the good teacher and who aren't. Heck, most kids could tell you.
Assuming that you could develop such a metric what would be the consequence if there weren't enough good teachers to go around?
As it stands now we can barely afford the crappy schools that we have now, so I am not sure how we afford to train more great teachers (assuming that great teaching can be taught).
The Finnish have made some amazing strides in their educational system. However, they give a lot more responsibility to teachers and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country.
Assuming that you could develop such a metric what would be the consequence if there weren't enough good teachers to go around?
Then you adjust class sized and/or use teacher's aides to supplement. Would you rather be in a class of 20 with a crappy teacher or a class of 40 with a brilliant, dedicated teacher and an aide?
While I am not in favor of tenure, I think this is a lousy analogy.
The obvious difference is that players are judged by their own performance not someone else's performance. While coaches have to rely on their players they have latitude to bench underperforming players, fire them if their contract is up, or get new players via a draft or a trade.
Teachers don't have these kinds of options when it comes to students, they have to deal with the kids that they get.
There is a lot of truth to this. I too do not favor tenure over merit. There is a common misconception that the best schools are that way because they have the best teachers, the best funding, etc. That is not always the case. The parents have a lot to do with how well the kids do. The more successful the parents, the more successful the kids (generally speaking). The more educated the parents, the more successful the kids (generally speaking). I know an elementary school teacher for a school that primarily served a nice new semi-upscale subdivision in Orlando. She would brag about how easy her job was. The school performed very well. And then the housing boom went into overdrive. People were buying and renting many of the new homes in the subdivision. The number of renters increased rapidly. Her "dream" teaching job went downhill and it went downhill fast. The kids were no longer every teacher's dream to teach. Same teachers, same school, same funding. The only change was the success and education of the parents.
I've heard the same thing from a teacher here in Temecula. Temecula has pretty good schools, but there is a difference between the schools that primarily serve the areas with a lot of apartment complexes and the areas that don't. Same school system, same level of funding. Only difference is the parents. Having rented longer than I have owned in my life, it feels wrong to say this. But it is logical. Homeowners are going to be more educated and more successful on average than renters. They are more apt to drive their kids to do well in school. Again, this is in general. There are certainly exceptions to this. It's not like Harvard doesn't admit any kids who grew up in challenging environments.
This all gives merit to your point about being judged on the performance of others. I don't know how you can judge a teacher by standardized tests alone. It is clear that parents probably have an equal say in how well the kids do. What if you took the highest performing school in CA and switched its students with the lowest performing school in CA? My guess is that the kids from the lowest performing school would still do poorly and the kids from the highest performing school would still do well. Maybe you'd see some movement in performance, but I doubt it would be by much.
Then you adjust class sized and/or use teacher's aides to supplement. Would you rather be in a class of 20 with a crappy teacher or a class of 40 with a brilliant, dedicated teacher and an aide?
What teacher aides? So you think that it will just be an extra 10 kids per great teacher? There are classes with 40 kids now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
