[lug] BVSD Windows vs Mac craziness

[Nate Duehr]

Bear Giles wrote:

> To be clear, I was referring to the absolutist policies that require the
> bottom 5% of performers be terminated every year or two, or at least
> have increasingly severe financial penalties.  In this environment
> teachers would literally have to choose between helping the neediest
> children and losing their job "for poor performance" within a few years.

No such policy needed.  They're not necessary in business (although
General Motors has such a policy, for one), and not necessary for
teachers.  It just needs to be as "easy" to fire a bad teacher as it is
easy for me to lose my job in the regular work-a-day world... companies
have to be careful these days, but if someone's not performing or simply
has an absolutely horrible attitude -- they're eventually gone.

Stories of teachers in NYC sitting in the "rubber room" buildings who
have been involved in child molestation and other hideous things that
mean they can't EVER be allowed to work with children again -- who are
shielded from ever being fired by heinous and evil union regulations,
are the types of folks I'm talking about here.

They shouldn't be being paid a dime, and they should be out on the
street looking for a new job, not cooling their heels in a special
building for the teachers who can't teach.

>> Only if their parent's don't care and don't find them an alternative
>> school environment that specializes in such students.  It WOULD exist,
>> and it WOULD be more expensive for those parents.
> 
> 
> Why would those parents have to pay more?  What happened to the social
> guarantee that all children are entitled to a free education?

Specialization = expensive.  Just like in business.  If the parents see
that it will be more expensive to catch a lazy kid up, they'll ride the
kid's *** to do well.  In the case of seriously special-needs students,
appropriate measures could be taken to actively reward schools that
handle them well... within reason.

>> It's all about personal drive and motivation.  Parents are far more
>> important in that than any teacher can ever be.
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  It's true with involved parents, but I'm sure
> they're a minority.  My parents were supportive when I was very young
> (think K-3 science kits, etc.), but by the the time my sister and I hit
> Jr. High they couldn't be bothered.  Hell, they actively prevented
> advanced placements by the school.  My teachers and BSA troopmaster were
> far more important than my parents.  I suspect that's true of most
> working-class and poor kids.

Would they have been more interested in your education if it was going
to start costing them more to send you to school if you fell behind?

Hard question -- I know.  Some might even say too harsh... but educating
kids is serious business, so I'm willing to ask.  It's my investment
money that's taken away and used to pay for it... I think I'm entitled
to ask hard questions about how that investment is going to turn out.

How much more motivated would the average working-class parent be, and
active in their kid's education if the kid falling behind put a dent in
their wallet?

Seriously:  Don't have time for kids, don't have money for kids, don't
have them.

Somewhere, somehow this country needs to get that through some very
thick skulls... and digging right into the wallet gets people's
attention damn quick about their responsibility in the matter.

>> Bouncing the question off parents is not worse.  I truly believe that
>> some parents WOULD screw their kids over and not send them to
>> traditional schools where they'd learn basics instead of religion...
>> but... that's the parents and the family's problem.
> 
> No, it's the kid's problem.  He's the one getting short-shifted.  One of
> the major purposes of public schools is to act as a safety net that
> looks out for the children when the parents don't.  We could lose that
> with charter schools that have a vested financial interest in keeping
> the parents happy.

I very much disagree about the safety net thing -- this sounds cold and
damn mean, but I truly believe if there were competition between
schools... even the kids at the bottom end of the bell curve would be
better off, not worse.  But you can't fix (ever) that there's going to
be a bell curve.

I also see plenty of kids in that bottom of the bell curve thing in
today's schools.  I (sadly) don't think the numbers would change
significantly in either scenario, but there's zero chance they will in
the current one.  There's at least a chance in the one I'm proposing here.

A vested financial interest in keeping parents happy and meeting at
least some minimum standards of education.

And PUBLICATION of how well they fare against competing schools.

No bureaucratic secrets... like the one that started this whole
discussion:  What is BCSD up to by decreeing that Windows is the "right
choice" for our young people?

If they were accountable for where their money went, that answer would
be in a published plan somewhere that parents considering sending their
kid to the district would be able to review, and society would be able
to judge... talk radio, newspapers, etc... and the system would
inherently oust any administrator wasting money in the program, or the
kids would migrate away from it until it failed.  It'd work.

Sorry, I know this is way OT.  I keep trying to at least get back a
little bit to the original topic along the way here...

Nate