Monday, March 21, 2011
Education Maldonado: In Union Battles, Why Are Teachers Taking More of a Beating Than Police or Firefighters?
Posted by Jim Ridley on Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:04 PM
Over at the City Paper, Charles Maldonado's blistering essay on why unions matter — specifically the teachers' unions under attack across the country — has the switchboard buzzing. Maldonado (the husband of a Metro schoolteacher) raises a point we'd been curious about:
I don’t think they made enough of the fact that the collective bargaining bill was drafted by the Tennessee School Boards Association, the very people with whom the union negotiates — which is, to me, a glaring conflict of interest. I don’t think they’ve made enough of the fact that this is all about political patronage: Republicans don’t get money from unions and Democrats do. Bill Ketron himself has admitted that’s what is really driving these anti-union bills.This should be insulting to Tennessee taxpayers and voters, who are not here to watch public officials take a pre-existing, half-formed prejudice and then attempt to legitimize the myths supporting that prejudice. It is, of course, all the better if the prejudice is against a group with limited power, like unions, which are weak in Tennessee already.
Even better for Ramsey, Ketron and the gang might be unions with a lot of women in them. You’ll notice how much harder this national debate has been on the teachers’ unions as opposed to firefighter or police unions, for instance. It’s hard not to think that there’s an element of, “Well, it’s mostly secondary incomes anyway. Their husbands will take care of ’em” to all of this.
Comments (63)
Showing 1-50 of 63
It has been as obvious as a Gallagher joke, that the bills aimed at ending CBA for teachers is part of a political plan. If anyone cares to dig, one can find the larger national political organizations that have written this legislation. Problem is that, teachers have become this year's movie villain (to be portrayed by Jeroen Krabbe) thanks to stuff like WAITING FOR SUPERMAN and Ms. Rhee and Mr. Gates going on about "bad teachers." Though everyone likes their own child's teacher, "teachers" are considered the problem with their demands for due process and whatnot.
The only national figure willing to go out on a limb so far is Jon Stewart, who though formidable always retreats with his "aw shucks I'm just an entertainer" shtick. (yes, there is Micheal Moore, but there is always Micheal Moore). I don't know of any one w/ the Q rating to turn the tide on the PR part of this, which is where unions, teachers unions in particular have already given ground.
Guess it's just up to us . . .
like
dislike
Hey, I'm doing my part. I've been broadcasting the information about the blatant political payback involved for weeks, to anyone who will listen. And I defy anyone who hasn't already sold their soul to the Tea Party to listen to a recording or read a transcript of Rep. Deborah Maggart's speech to the House Education Subcommittee last week. It was one of the most offensive things I have ever heard, and I have been sorely tempted to call her a gender traitor because of it.
while i generally support collective bargaining, i definitely had awful teachers, and have certainly met and witnessed some awful cops. the unions would be well-advised to rethink across-the-board, tenured untouchables.
MM,
"Though everyone likes their own child's teacher, "teachers" are considered the problem with their demands for due process and whatnot."
That same argument applies to Congress. Everyone likes their Congressman but thinks all the others are corrupt and incompetent. Are you suggesting that Congress doesn't need better members?
How about the seniority rules that allow older, more experienced teachers to opt out of problem schools for easier places while bumping younger, less experienced teachers into more troubled schools? Please tell me how that helps the most vulnerable students.
Or how does paying mediocre teachers with 30 years of experience more than excellent teachers who have only been teaching for five help children? What is so about incentives that is so bad for education?
"Are you suggesting that Congress doesn't need better members?"
I can't speak for MM, but I would say "of course not". But you don't do away with the institution, just because there are bad Congressmen. The same is true of unions. In fact, unions have a lot in common with elected bodies. Members of the bargaining unit vote, and whoever gets a majority vote is the exclusive bargaining representative for the members of the unit, even for those people who didn't vote for the representative or who didn't even vote, at all. Just like representatives in the Congress and the General Assembly, who are elected by majority vote (usually) and who represent everyone in their districts, even the people who would have crawled over broken glass to keep them out of office.
I am amazed that more Republican legislators don't see the hypocrisy inherent in their opposition to unions. If teachers can bargain for themselves better than the union can (which is what Rep. Maggart and others of her ilk have said), then surely the people of Tennessee could govern themselves better than the ideologues in the General Assembly. Rep. Maggart and the rest of those supporting repeal of the bargaining law should therefore all resign, rather than support such an obviously flawed system of representative democracy.
In these comments it's normal to have spelling and punctuation errors but it still seems odd that a post containing several would be in defense of teachers.
Mr Rogers:
Your logic escapes me. I think it escapes you as well. How does one slide down that slippery slope so fast? At the bottom, you bump into fallacy. But I'll allow you to explain to us all how removing CBA rights automatically means better teachers.
[crickets chirp}
Union leadership is fine with extending that "trial period" before teachers are eligible for tenure. It would be better for both students and teachers. Forget about annoying, meaningless cries for "accountability." Teachers gain more experience and may be more adequately prepared to stand for tenure. I don't know leadership stance on changing seniority rules, but surely you can think of reasons an older teacher might want to transfer besides escaping "troubled schools." I think that's a red herring.
Can you name an occupation not related to entertainment where more experience doesn't = higher pay? That's how it's done, kid. Even in entertainment/sports, higher pay for less experienced workers is usually based on potential, not anything we can really quantify. Elected officials get same salary no matter what, it's tied to their position, but more experience brings other perks. Our economic system has already spoken on the matter. We value experience.
If you are bad at your job you tend to lose your job, except recently (lay offs, etc). Employers usually have to show cause, though. Same w/ teachers. Tenure just forces employers to show cause to a constitutional standard. It isn't "lifetime job security."
Performance metrics have not shown, in any serious study, to mean much. Pay bonuses in one study showed no effect on student achievement.
The things you need to be focused on, if you care abt student achievement, are kindergarten readiness, performance recidivism in later grades, and disparities in performance between socio-economic groups. We can at least prove those matters impact performance. We cannot prove that charter schools or "bad" teachers impact scores in any meaningful way.
The state Republicans, like their cohorts in other states, do not actually care about any of this. It's an attempt to weaken the Democratic hold on unions, nothing more. They certainly can't explain how all of this is going to make teachers better, much less solve budgetary problems. And Tennessee's Republicans are even worse, as usual, because they always tend to be a "me too" legislature about many hot-button issues.
It's also interesting to hear the logic about why police and firefighter union collective bargaining is being protected in several of these states. Because if removed, public safety will be impacted. Really? So removing collective bargaining for police and firefighters will result in a less safe society but removing them for teachers will result in better education? That's called twisted logic, not that any of our illustrious lawmakers are going to worry themselves up to much about that.
"Can you name an occupation not related to entertainment where more experience doesn't = higher pay? That's how it's done, kid. Even in entertainment/sports, higher pay for less experienced workers is usually based on potential, not anything we can really quantify. Elected officials get same salary no matter what, it's tied to their position, but more experience brings other perks. Our economic system has already spoken on the matter. We value experience. "
Not really - the real (i.e private sector) economic system values performance. Experience only matters if it translates into performance. And seniority is not synonymous with either one of them.
John Paulson, the hedge fund star made $5 billion in 2010 and seniority had nothing to do with it. It was pure performance.
Ah, Gil, old friend. Le plus ca change le plus ca meme chose.
Don't conflate commissions and salary raises. Investment Banking is less like a job and more like gambling with other's money.
It clearly isn't true that experience only matters if it translates into performance. Experience becomes less relevant if performance is demonstrably bad. but if you're in a job for a period of time, you'll get a raise. Even in your private sector. Performance affects how fast you advance, and perhaps how far, but doesn't negate the value of experience.
You certainly haven't made an argument for some pure merit based pay system in teaching.
"Don't conflate commissions and salary raises. Investment Banking is less like a job and more like gambling with other's money. "
Hedge funds don't do investment banking. That is the forte of institutions like Goldman Sachs.
Most of the money that Paulson made was capital appreciation on his own money that he had invested in his fund right along with his clients money. And commissions certainly are pay for performance.
"It clearly isn't true that experience only matters if it translates into performance. Experience becomes less relevant if performance is demonstrably bad"
Which means it is performance that matters one way or the other.
"You certainly haven't made an argument for some pure merit based pay system in teaching."
I wasn't trying to make one. I was commenting on your generic remarks on how the economic world works.
My preference for dealing with education is a far more radical change than so-called "merit" pay for teachers. As long as government bureaurcrats are measuring the "merit" that would merely be more gaming of the system.
My preference is to blow up the government school monoploly altogether. Attach the education funding to the child - not the school. Give the parents education vouchers that they can use to pay for tuition at any school of their choosing - including private schools, charter schools, etc. Make the schools compete for customers the same as every other business in the private sector.
Competition works just fine in provision products and services. There is nothing "special" about education services that makes it immune from that principle.
"It's also interesting to hear the logic about why police and firefighter union collective bargaining is being protected in several of these states. Because if removed, public safety will be impacted. Really? So removing collective bargaining for police and firefighters will result in a less safe society but removing them for teachers will result in better education?"
No it is pure politics that some public occupations are being exempted in certain states from the cancellation of collective bargaining.
Of course it is also true that claiming cancelling collective bargaining rights of teachers or anyone else will hurt performce of the function is also pure politics.
Neither federal workers nor state or local government employees in about half the states have collecive bargaining rights. There is no proof that the government functions in the states that do have it are being performed any more effectively than they are in the states that don't.
"Competition works just fine in provision products and services."
That might be true, if we actually had a real opportunity for competition in this country. We do not, because the federal government heavily subsidizes certain industries like corporate farms and ethanol producers, which creates a windfall for those "competitors".
"No it is pure politics that some public occupations are being exempted in certain states from the cancellation of collective bargaining."
I know that Gilbert. But the company line has been that cancelling collective bargaining rights for police and firemen will hurt morale and thereby reduce safety. Why that isn't true for teachers they won't say.
And if eliminating collective bargaining for public unions makes any dent in the budgetary problems of all these states, I'll eat my shoes. It has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with political power.
"That might be true, if we actually had a real opportunity for competition in this country. We do not, because the federal government heavily subsidizes certain industries like corporate farms and ethanol producers, which creates a windfall for those "competitors".
You'll get no argument from me on that. It is called corporatism and there is far too much of it going on in the country. And both the Democrats and Republicans are neck deep in enabling it.
Get rid of all of it.
"And if eliminating collective bargaining for public unions makes any dent in the budgetary problems of all these states, I'll eat my shoes. It has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with political power"
If it results in public sector employee benefits being reformed to make them more in line with what is the norm in the private sector, it most certainly will "make a dent" in state government finances. Defined contribution plans are cheaper for the employer than defined benefit plans. It shifts the longevity risk and investment underperformance risk to the employee. That's why the private sector switched.
And most private employers do not offer any post retirement healthcare benefits at all. That is the big expense that would be cut out of state government finances if they stopped offering that benefit.
Of course defanging the unions is politically motivated. We're sick and tired of teachers cramming their socialist garbage down our children's throats. This is America. We are not Europe. Institutions that encourage and preserve mediocrity are now being attacked, because mediocre isn't good enough anymore. We're competing against the entire world. A new system is coming, and it isn't based on the status quo.
"Of course defanging the unions is politically motivated. We're sick and tired of teachers cramming their socialist garbage down our children's throats. This is America. We are not Europe. Institutions that encourage and preserve mediocrity are now being attacked, because mediocre isn't good enough anymore. We're competing against the entire world. A new system is coming, and it isn't based on the status quo."
OK, Michael Savage. Do you have kids? I've got two in public schools and I can assure you that they aren't being taught socialism. My mom also was a teacher until she retired and she is certainly no socialist. She actually thinks Fox News IS fair and balanced.
I think the issue is how do people define merit and how do people define mediocrity? To people like "Skeeter Jensen" as well as it seems too many on the Right in this country, it is such a black and white issue. It's not. A teacher in Brentwood High school can be mediocre as can be but the test scores are going to be higher because he/she has students that don't come to school hungry every day and have parents that are on their butts to study and do their work and hire tudors if need be. A teacher at a poorer school does not have these luxuries so there is little actual incentive for a qualified teacher to choose to teach in a school where 90% of the student body is below the poverty line.
But in right-wing Republican world, it's all black and white and test scores and other metric criteria are always going to tell the story.
One more point for you Chris regarding your repeated claim that getting rid of collective bargaining being all about political power:
That's entirely fitting because pure Democratic party political power was the ONLY reason it was ever created in the first place. And maintaining that Democratic power is the ONLY reason the Dems are fighting it by running out of their states to prevent votes, etc.
Gilbert, I'm not going to debate the point. Both parties have their power bases and both seek to protect theirs. But I wasn't born yesterday and maybe the "we're doing this for the budget" crap flies with some people, it doesn't fly with me.
"and maybe the "we're doing this for the budget" crap flies with some people, it doesn't fly with me."
The Democrat's stated rationales of "saving the middle class", etc. offered up for why they are trying to prevent the collective bargaining changes is not one iota less "crap" and a lie than the GOP claims you are harping about. You are merely being partisanly selective in your outrage.
Furthermore if all this DOES result in transforming government employee benefits into the type prevelant in the private sector, it most certainly will result in lower government expenditures and have an impact on the budget. That is just a plain economic fact.
@Chris: Maybe your mom could have engaged a "tudor" for you. And hungry kids are fed at school these days, or supposed to be. You'll have to find another excuse for poor performance or face reality: Poverty does not cause poor grades; poor grades cause poverty.
Poverty isn't just about food. It's about security and resources. And poverty does contribute to poor performance in school, because children who are hungry, or who are sleeping in a shelter or a car at night, or who have parents working two or three jobs and therefore unable to provide the necessary home support will not perform as well as children who do not deal with those same challenges.
Good one Gast! Actually, I did have a tudor in high school as math was not my strength by a long shot. No shame in that and I've done prettywell for myself since then. But I would refer to the next post by Min. That's just fairly common knowledge and if you ever speak to someone who actually teaches at risk children, you would know that. Poverty absolutely is a major factor in poor grades and dropping out of school. That's why we tend to give a lot of adulation to those who escape it, because it's so rare.
Did someone say Tudors? Henry the VIII, I am! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsCeVdCDqjE
Don't let Gil and his Ayn Rand Cult Crew try and draw us off topic.
And cue the people who struggle with the who came first, chicken or eggs "quandary." Whenever faced with a concrete suggestion as to why schools are "bad," they lob homilies back at you. Or try to frighten you with the spectre of becoming EUROPEAN!!! (AGGHH! WE'LL HAVE TO LIKE SOCCER!!! WEAR BLACK SOCKS AND SANDALS!!!)
The effects of "poverty" isn't really just about security and resources. As poverty is often directly correlated to education, parents are less prepared for providing the preparation for their child entering school, less able to assist w/ homework, less focused on it b/c they never learned themselves. Or maybe it's simply that when you're working the 1st and 3rd shift you are way too tired to deal w/ the kids no matter how much you love them, you gotta sleep.
There's another factor in this, it gets into territory on which liberals consistently are teased on, social-emotional readiness. This factor is shown to be on parallel with economic status (richer, more "ready" as you may guess). Studies are showing that this variable may be the most important factor when it comes to predicting performance in k - 3 students (this is all available on the google or the lexis).
But well with all this stuff that requires reading in our free time it's just much easier to say "oh to hell with it, let's throw our hands up."
But you know, the only serious long term study about student progression that looks at performance on a national level shows us that the public school performance is not nearly as bad as we think. I don't know why we think this, perhaps we are simply looking at the wrong things.
I personally am tired of all the well meaning nice liberal folks trotting out us poor people of color as their main reason for instituting charter schools (don't get me wrong, some of my best friends have worked on charter school boards, like my pops). But it seems like every time I see a discussion of the topic there's some Black kids sitting in a dimly lit classroom on dated desks. You know what, over the last several years, scores for Black and ESL/ELL students have improved significantly. I repeat, scores have IMPROVED.
Here is where you will find the longitudinal study. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Now, to me that doesn't say these gosh danged commies teachin' our coloreds have failed. It says they are doing pretty well. They have a long hard slog ahead of them but they are doing the job.
Now why don't we hear about progress? It goes against the storyline. The ppl coming down from the Ivies to save our schools. SuperGates to the rescue! Our pals on the right who would abolish the entire system and make your kids learn in a little red school house, or a big brick one if they can afford the tuition.
"Don't let Gil and his Ayn Rand Cult Crew try and draw us off topic. "
The original topic was UNIONS.
And you've strayed off of it as much as anyone here.
Oh Gil,
The topic is unions yes. But, if you could read well enough, you'd have seen "teacher's unions specifically." Thank you good night.
Yes - teachers unions and collective bargaining.
Not a bunch of blather about socio-economic conditions of students.
I love the way Ridley casually mentions "over at the City Paper...". Isn't The Scene and City Paper owned by the same company? Seems like two heads on the same propaganda beast. The reason teachers are taking a beating is because firefighters and police do their job competently for the most part, but the public schools are lousy despite massive appropriations. What's Tennessee's national ranking again? Also, we have a serious problem with Federal spending, and we need to rein costs in. The river of gravy has run dry. And what's up with Maldonado? You made only $7000 last year? That's incredibly lame! Mommy needs to get a better job to support your ass!
And I see Lord Canterbury can't be bothered to follow the link to ACTUAL INFORMATION on the performance of public school students. Nah, like most people, just repeat what you're told. Don't look for yourself. That would be too much like an intellectual exercise.
And Gil, I expect so little from you, and you never disappoint.
"The reason teachers are taking a beating is because firefighters and police do their job competently for the most part, but the public schools are lousy despite massive appropriations."
You really believe that? Really? Why don't you judge police by the same way you apparently judge teachers, by using statistics. If you do that and hold them up to the same standards, I would hardly say police do their jobs more competently than teachers, what with the crime rate where it is. Since people want to blame teachers for students not doing good, poverty or not, police should be held to the same standards.
But we all know the real reason police and fire unions don't take the same beating: they are more tough and macho and more likely to support Republicans, the people who like unions the least. But I think you already know this.
"Yes - teachers unions and collective bargaining.
Not a bunch of blather about socio-economic conditions of students."
It's all connected Gilbert. All we've been hearing about for years from the Right is "unqualified" teachers and tenure and how the teacher's unions are making it hard to fire mediocre teachers. But great, qualified teachers, who choose to work in low income school districts compared to say, Williamson County, are constantly bombarded because the students don't do as well. With the metrics in the very flawed No Child Left Behind law defining how a teacher's quality is measured, weakening teacher's unions will weaken public education. And that might be what guy's like you want.
"And Gil, I expect so little from you, and you never disappoint."
Right back at ya.
"It's all connected Gilbert"
No it's not.
Socio-economic effects on student academic performance has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether government employees in general or teachers in particular shoud be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain.
Nor does it have anything to do with whether there should be a government run school monopoly or whether competiton should be allowed for education dollars via education vouchers issued to parents.
One thing I'll say Gil, you aren't afraid to come right out with the plot. the gambit to take away teacher's CBA and input programs like "choice" and vouchers (a pre-cursor to Educational Management Organizations) is part of the plot to allow the invisible hand of the free market to give students the middle finger.
Gil can probably figure out the connection between socio-economic effects on performance (at least in he admits above there is one, lol) and teacher's demands for CBA. He's just unwilling to admit it.
Here's one reason why competition is a ridiculous notion when applied to teaching. Teaching is not a competitive enterprise. Competition implies you have one eye on the prize and the other on your "opponent." You're trying to build a better mousetrap and make sure it's better than the other dude's. That's fine for a business. Teachers and school administrators should be focused on what their students are doing, and not just their grades and test scores.
Competition, as we all know, can lead to cutting corners and cheating and all sorts of misfeasance when the stakes are really high. To wit: the NY city schools fudging test results, the charter schools in LA where a principal is alleged to have encouraged teachers to fudge test scores. It was pretty easy to predict this sort of thing would happen and to the degree it has already. And as we see in society at large, the degree of penalty isn't going to be the thing that prevents the unwanted behaviors in general (Bruce Pearl, etc)
One can say well, shite happens, nothing we can do, shikata ga nai. No reason to throw out the baby with the jacuzzi water. So, we're concerned about what kinds of morals kids are learning in schools, aren't we?
"Gil can probably figure out the connection between socio-economic effects on performance (at least in he admits above there is one, lol) and teacher's demands for CBA. He's just unwilling to admit it."
More nonsense.
There has never been any evidence that a unionized workforce in any occupation has ever outperformed a nonunionized one in the same occupation anywhere at any time.
"Teaching is not a competitive enterprise"
Sure it is. You just don't want it to be.
Private schools compete with each other and so do Colleges, Universities and trade schools. There is nothing magical about the K-12 level that makes it exempt.
"Competition, as we all know, can lead to cutting corners and cheating and all sorts of misfeasance"
No more so than in government monopolies run by unaccountable bureaurcrats.
You have to explain what you mean by "private schools compete with each other" Gil. If you're talking about "for students" and "by offering the best facilities, great sports programs" then of course, we know that. That's not what I'm talking about, which should have been obvious.
As to your other points, you're arguing against something I haven't said. But okay, I'll bite, what do you mean by "outperformed?" Made more widgets? Run faster? But, really, you're wrong no matter what you mean. In high competition (there's your fav word) industries unions raise productivity. Unions provide incentive to workers, workers feel they have a greater stake in the outcome. You know from just observing that unions strike deals all the time to save the jobs of members . . . those kinds of things.
And that's from empirical studies, not from just me talk radio broadsides.
You continue to spout nonsense.
Unions raise productivity?
They most certainly do not. And there are certainly no "empirical studies" that prove that they do.
That's why unionization has declined all over the private sector - it cannot compete with more productive, lower cost non union busineses. And so they have declined despite the efforts of unions to use politics to restrict competion that they cannot handle without outside interference from the government.
"You know from just observing that unions strike deals all the time to save the jobs of members . . . those kinds of things"
Are you seriously offering this up as an example of unions increasing productivity?
You need some education yourself - on basic economic principles.
"You have to explain what you mean by "private schools compete with each other" Gil. If you're talking about "for students" and "by offering the best facilities, great sports programs" then of course, we know that. That's not what I'm talking about, which should have been obvious."
I'm talking about competion in every aspect of the education service inside and outside the classroom - which they most cetainly do compete on.
There is nothing magical about education. Competition improves the provisioning of all products and services including the service called education.
Gil, here is just one study.
Unions increase worker productivity. Brown and Medoff (2004) remark that unionized firms have a 22% higher productivity than non unionized firms.
I'll leave it to you to work hard to figure out why this is (hint: a function of increased job security).
The difference between what they know, and what they think they know, is vast.
The rest is just your trying to apply your dogma to any situation without a) having anything to support your supposition and b) not really thinking through what you're saying.
About fudging statistics and poverty: Test score standards have been lowered several times over the years just to keep the schools and teachers and children from looking so inept compared to prior generatons and that's pretty much fudging the stats which was not necessary until the unions got control. And if poverty causes poor grades then logic suggests that we could take all the money from the haves and give it to the have nots and these new haves would produce the next generation of rocket scientists. I don't think so.
The public would be shocked at the petty things brought up when an Administration
proposes anything of improvement in education to their local union. On one occasion
in a very large county: A superintendent suggested a better dress code for their
teachers versus what had become norm. The Union rep demanded that if that was
adopted the teachers be allowed to listen to their I-pods when the students were
involved in testing or other similar matters. For every single request by any
administration to their union. the union has a (Nationally Supplied) list of 3 or 4 things they demand as a counter. An unfair waste of taxpayer funding and student improvement is at stake here!
"Gil, here is just one study.
Unions increase worker productivity. Brown and Medoff (2004) remark that unionized firms have a 22% higher productivity than non unionized firms. "
Complete bullshit. Any "study" purporting to show that unions increase productity was either financed by some union or put out by some liberal advocacy group. GM and Chrysler didn't go through bankruptcy because they were too productive.
We don't have unions lobbying politicians to create tarrifs and import quotas on products because they are "too productive".
Success in the marketplace is what determines superior performance - not ginned up "studies".
"The rest is just your trying to apply your dogma to any situation without a) having anything to support your supposition and b) not really thinking through what you're saying."
All you're doing is making long winded excusese for continuing a system that serves as a political base and cash cow for the Democratic party.
There is politics involved in everything the government does. Politics is the only reason that the government school monoploy was ever set up to begin with. There was never any empirical proof that that was the best way to deliver education services to begin with.
Mr. Mays, I can read all the slanted studies you have, and it won't make a difference in my opinion. Let's try a real intellectual exercise, one based in reality. Tennessee has a huge investment in adult education programs (not to mention remedial classes at the community college level), because these people didn't learn enough of anything in the THIRTEEN years they were in PUBLIC schools. Why do parents want a private school education for their kids? Not because of facilities and sports, but ACADEMICS. Real scholarship, no excuses. The public schools target the lowest common denominator, which is why you are deficient in your critical thinking skills, Mr. Mays.
Oh Lord Canterbury, you went all out for so little return. You did kind of give me an intellectual exercise however. By the time I got to the word THIRTEEN in your little diatribe, I had already thought of 5 possible reasons some person decided to take adult education classes besides not doing well in school. What's more, the people who do that are not to be disparaged, they are to be commended. They're trying to better themselves. It's no slight against TN education system to point out that many people have chosen to get a GED. It's great they have the opportunity.
The existence of those programs or the fact that people take remedial courses in college are of course irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying feebly to make, that schools are bad. The states that have the best "performance" also spend money for adult education and remedial courses and a thriving community college program. A Four year degree isn't for everyone.
Also, Lord Canterbury Eggs, your assumption that I have a public school education is wrong in part. I attended private schools for many years. My public school education just happened to be at one of the best colleges in the world. GO TAR HEELS!
Gil, FAIL. Just a big wad of FAIL.
"About fudging statistics and poverty: Test score standards have been lowered several times over the years just to keep the schools and teachers and children from looking so inept compared to prior generatons and that's pretty much fudging the stats which was not necessary until the unions got control."
I've actually come to the conclusion that this person called Gast is actually a Scene staffer trying to keep the comments going. It's the only conclusion I can come up with.
@ Mark- I've learned that with these types of subjects, which have so much gray area and little black and white, that you can argue until you're blue in the face. It's become so obvious that the Right these days deals in obfuscation and distortion on just about every issue out there and using facts and studies isn't going to change their mind.
"Gil, FAIL. Just a big wad of FAIL."
LOL
You aren't the judge.
You're merely a leftist hack.
Chrisallen: Several times over the years it has been mentioined in the news that testing standards have been lowered because too many students were failing the current standards. You are most likely a product of the lower standards. And just in the last week or two it's also been in the news that after two years of college most students have gained no knowledge and after four years of college most students know little more than when they started. That's worth storing in the old bean because some of these students are becoming teachers. And you, in your stubbornness to accept all things liberal without question, provide an example of the problem. When I replied to your comment about being "tudored" by putting "tudor" in quotation marks you didn't even blink in your reply. You might want to look the word up. Also look for words that sound like "tudor." And I surely hope you're not a teacher.
"You are most likely a product of the lower standards."
Ouch, Gast. The master of insults is at it again. The do know that when you resort to insults, you really don't have anything substantial to say. I also don't take the time to critique the grammer on everybody's post. But if you'd like me to, the entire first sentence of your post from 12:51 a.m. is a run-on sentence.
By the way, I'm 36 years old and not a product of lower standards. I went to college and got an MBA after that. I also like to verify the facts that I post, unlike someone I won't mention. But hey, the pictures of the ice you saw on that website was pretty convincing, I must say. (sarcasm intended)
