BMroom;842324583 said:

---

I hope that Berkeley grads aren't asserting that the post-war economic boom was due to union membership rates.

---

Nope but Cal grads with an understanding of history know being paid fairly, overtime, a 40-hour work week, vacation time (you know that sorta stuff) were directly due to unions. Seriously you think the robber barons or corporatist did that? Get real...and I was hoping Berkeley grads aren't idiots.

CalZebra2012;842324568 said:

---

How about less of this...







...and more of this?

---

I can agree with this.
The lower picture shows about 12 kids in the class.
And the teachers in the upper picture are fighting for smaller classes.
Soooo, let's give the teachers what they want and they won't have to protest to achieve it.

beelzebear;842324588 said:

---

Nope but Cal grads with an understanding of history know being paid fairly, overtime, a 40-hour work week, vacation time (you know that sorta stuff) were directly due to unions. Seriously you think the robber barons or corporatist did that? Get real...and I was hoping Berkeley grads aren't idiots.

---

The Bill of Rights was directly due to a bloody revolution. Clearly we should continue forming militias to protest taxation.

Unions had a legitimate purpose 50 years ago, but today they cease to be relevant aside from fattening the pockets of union bosses.

pingpong2;842324593 said:

---

The Bill of Rights was directly due to a bloody revolution. Clearly we should continue forming militias to protest taxation.

Unions had a legitimate purpose 50 years ago, but today they cease to be relevant aside from fattening the pockets of union bosses.

---

My brother works as a high-voltage electrician for an utility. He is an union member. He gets paid well but the reason is because it's dangerous (people die) and requires training. (The material was as difficult as anything while I was at Cal) Any way, the union provides wage protection but also provides serious life and death training. Thus the utility gets safe, qualified employees, fewer deaths, lower insurance costs and the public gets consistent power, an important element to modern life society.

Same basic principle holds true for many other unions, like BART. Those guys get paid well and driving a train sure looks simple but bottom line is they're paid well so people don't die. Remember how those management guys learning to drive a train during the strike ran over a couple of track workers? Yeah, that's why unions are still relevant.

Any way, if you wish to go back to the dark ages, read some Upton Sinclair and use your education to project how that might look today.

Any way, nice try at diverting the argument with the Bill of Rights stuff. Why not literally wrap yourself in the flag while making that argument?

Hearing LOTS of arguments back-and-forth. Still waiting to hear why tenure is warranted...

Cal79;842324600 said:

---

Hearing LOTS of arguments back-and-forth. Still waiting to hear why tenure is warranted...

---

Because Teachers take care (like doing the job mommy and daddy should do) of most of the snot nosed little ingrates that will soon populate this country.

I never once met a person at Cal that said, "I want to teach." Do you know why? It's because the benefits suck.

Tenure is a perk for doing a job most none of us would dream of wanting to do.

Most of the teachers I know live very stable, well balanced lives. They don't make as much money as I do, but then again they don't have to live in a market based rat race like I do. Most of them are in it for the long haul.

Tenure and a secured pension is part of that. Unfortunately both of those tenants have recently come under political attack.

beelzebear;842324598 said:

---

My brother works as a high-voltage electrician for an utility. He is an union member. He gets paid well but the reason is because it's dangerous (people die) and requires training. (The material was as difficult as anything while I was at Cal) Any way, the union provides wage protection but also provides serious life and death training. Thus the utility gets safe, qualified employees, fewer deaths, lower insurance costs and the public gets consistent power, an important element to modern life society.

Same basic principle holds true for many other unions, like BART. Those guys get paid well and driving a train sure looks simple but bottom line is they're paid well so people don't die. Remember how those management guys learning to drive a train during the strike ran over a couple of track workers? Yeah, that's why unions are still relevant.

Any way, if you wish to go back to the dark ages, read some Upton Sinclair and use your education to project how that might look today.

Any way, nice try at diverting the argument with the Bill of Rights stuff. Why not literally wrap yourself in the flag while making that argument?

---

I agree with most of what you are saying but at the same time, I would point out that that a lot of union opposition is the result of their own shenanigans. Teachers' unions are some of the worst. They have created the current (but soon to be rectified) environment in which tenured slugs are retained no matter how poor their performance.

And teachers are culpable in this outcome, as they have failed to curtail any of the union conduct. Many folks overlooked the tenure/poor performance issues but when the unions (NEA and AFT) started paying "civil rights" leaders like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, producing videos attacking capitalism (the NEA/Ed Asner fiasco), campaigning for tax hikes, etc., people started getting pissed. And now teachers are paying the price for all of that.

I say "Welcome, teachers." Welcome to the system in which the remaining 99% of us exist. You had a good run but failure to moderate the excesses has placed you with the rest of us. Now merit dictates whether you'll be employed tomorrow.

93gobears;842324638 said:

---

Because Teachers take care (like doing the job mommy and daddy should do) of most of the snot nosed little ingrates that will soon populate this country.

I never once met a person at Cal that said, "I want to teach." Do you know why? It's because the benefits suck.

Tenure is a perk for doing a job most none of us would dream of wanting to do.

Most of the teachers I know live very stable, well balanced lives. They don't make as much money as I do, but then again they don't have to live in a market based rat race like I do. Most of them are in it for the long haul.

Tenure and a secured pension is part of that. Unfortunately both of those tenants have recently come under political attack.

---

In my era I was taught by women-highly intelligent, dedicated and educated. Why? Because they couldn't get another job!

It's ridiculous to assume things are the same. Also why I find everyone complains about "education". I find far fewer people complain about their kid's schools.

Perhaps elimination of corporate taxes as well as personal capital gains taxes would improve the education system in the coming Confederate States of America 2.0?

What do you think, Z?

GB54;842324660 said:

---

In my era I was taught by women-highly intelligent, dedicated and educated. Why? Because they couldn't get another job!

It's ridiculous to assume things are the same. Also why I find everyone complains about "education". I find far fewer people complain about their kid's schools.

---

Along those same lines.

I question anyone to provide me with an objective way to determine the "effectiveness" of teachers.

Student aptitude tests. Really?
Most kids would prefer to fart on their hands and smell it rather than take these politically driven tests.
Then you want to hire a bunch of Arthur Andersen flunkies now working as consultants for some hack group like Lockheed, or McKinsey to mine the data and determine how efficient our teachers are being year over year so that you can make hiring/firing decisions?

The root of this problem is management.
Management of teachers and school districts.
Management by parents over their snot nosed kids.
Management by the federal government which lets every Tom, Wang and Jose get a publicly funded education regardless of whether or not they can speak or understand English.

Bobodeluxe;842324662 said:

---

Perhaps elimination of corporate taxes as well as personal capital gains taxes would improve the education system in the coming Confederate States of America 2.0?

What do you think, Z?

---

Perhaps centralizing all wealth and redistributing it will result in a utopian society. Wait. That's been tried and the idea remains in the waste bin of history. Wonder why so many California jobs are on their way to Texas and of all places, NY...

pingpong2;842324593 said:

---

The Bill of Rights was directly due to a bloody revolution. Clearly we should continue forming militias to protest taxation.

Unions had a legitimate purpose 50 years ago, but today they cease to be relevant aside from fattening the pockets of union bosses.

---

+1. A good example may be the automobile industry being brought down by excesses of unions in the state of Michigan, leaving Detroit a blight on the landscape. The union was essential pre- and slightly post- Taft Hartley (1947), but has long since outlived its necessity. Look at the automobile industry in the south, where it has moved. Non union, and I don't hear too many people screaming about abuses. Quite the contrary, they love the work. Unions "were" necessary at one time, now they create messes (both private and especially public ones)

CalZebra2012;842324644 said:

---

I agree with most of what you are saying but at the same time, I would point out that that a lot of union opposition is the result of their own shenanigans. Teachers' unions are some of the worst. They have created the current (but soon to be rectified) environment in which tenured slugs are retained no matter how poor their performance.

And teachers are culpable in this outcome, as they have failed to curtail any of the union conduct. Many folks overlooked the tenure/poor performance issues but when the unions (NEA and AFT) started paying "civil rights" leaders like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, producing videos attacking capitalism (the NEA/Ed Asner fiasco), campaigning for tax hikes, etc., people started getting pissed. And now teachers are paying the price for all of that.

I say "Welcome, teachers." Welcome to the system in which the remaining 99% of us exist. You had a good run but failure to moderate the excesses has placed you with the rest of us. Now merit dictates whether you'll be employed tomorrow.

---

Sorry. I think 2/3 of your post is pure gibberish.

I'm horrified that so many people here appear to have an anti-union animus. While it is certainly true that unions have in many cases been their own worst enemies with regards to stupid practices, it is my experience that this is the exception rather than the rule. (Full disclosure - I am employed by a union.) For folks here not to understand the role that the press plays in the PR associated with unions - especially the public sector unions - is hugely important. There is nothing 'sexy' whatsoever about reporting success with regards to industry in the media. Success is boring and doesn't sell. You know what sells? Scandal. Corruption. That is what is regularly conflated into an entire industry by the media - especially in an era where for-profit news gets to report on a 'socialized' industry.

It is also disturbing to me how short people's memories are. I remember that when I attended Cal in the 80s, the sentiment was that Civil Sector employees were suckers due to the fact that they were underpaid relative to their private sector counterparts. Benefits and security are THE REASON why individuals were attracted to the jobs. This is precisely HOW the sector competed. Fast forward 30+ years to a place in time where the private sector has raped any semblance of a social contract, and we have citizens (such as yourself) whining about how they don't have as good of a deal while forgetting that the civil service employee was relatively underpaid for over a decade. Odd how time changes perception.

I REALLY find it amusing that there are so many here singing the praises of free-market capitalism and the efficiency of competition while most here benefitted inordinately from a hugely subsidized higher education courtesy of the California taxpayer. Again - strange how so many of us were adequately educated by a system which was so egregiously inefficient and corrupt. Perhaps the truth isn't that the system is totally different, it is that the sentiments of the 'monied' in the state see an opportunity to further stuff their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer, and attacking the security of civil sector employees is a way to get into a huge pool of untapped wealth potential.

BTW - as someone here rightly pointed out, I'm terrified to see how the state will view 'incompetence' in the absence of tenure or some seniority-based protection. As someone who works in that environment, let me assure you that the reality of trying to eliminate top-step positions (higher pay) and replacing them with apprentice-level positions (lower pay) is alive and well in the state of California. I find the argument that a union environment shouldn't be able to defend it any better than an increasingly draconian private sector to be unconscionable.

88Bear;842324671 said:

---

Sorry. I think 2/3 of your post is pure gibberish.

I'm horrified that so many people here appear to have an anti-union animus. While it is certainly true that unions have in many cases been their own worst enemies with regards to stupid practices, it is my experience that this is the exception rather than the rule. (Full disclosure - I am employed by a union.) For folks here not to understand the role that the press plays in the PR associated with unions - especially the public sector unions - is hugely important. There is nothing 'sexy' whatsoever about reporting success with regards to industry in the media. Success is boring and doesn't sell. You know what sells? Scandal. Corruption. That is what is regularly conflated into an entire industry by the media - especially in an era where for-profit news gets to report on a 'socialized' industry.

It is also disturbing to me how short people's memories are. I remember that when I attended Cal in the 80s, the sentiment was that Civil Sector employees were suckers due to the fact that they were underpaid relative to their private sector counterparts. Benefits and security are THE REASON why individuals were attracted to the jobs. This is precisely HOW the sector competed. Fast forward 30+ years to a place in time where the private sector has raped any semblance of a social contract, and we have citizens (such as yourself) whining about how they don't have as good of a deal while forgetting that the civil service employee was relatively underpaid for over a decade. Odd how time changes perception.

I REALLY find it amusing that there are so many here singing the praises of free-market capitalism and the efficiency of competition while most here benefitted inordinately from a hugely subsidized higher education courtesy of the California taxpayer. Again - strange how so many of us were adequately educated by a system which was so egregiously inefficient and corrupt. Perhaps the truth isn't that the system is totally different, it is that the sentiments of the 'monied' in the state see an opportunity to further stuff their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer, and attacking the security of civil sector employees is a way to get into a huge pool of untapped wealth potential.

BTW - as someone here rightly pointed out, I'm terrified to see how the state will view 'incompetence' in the absence of tenure or some seniority-based protection. As someone who works in that environment, let me assure you that the reality of trying to eliminate top-step positions (higher pay) and replacing them with apprentice-level positions (lower pay) is alive and well in the state of California. I find the argument that a union environment shouldn't be able to defend it any better than an increasingly draconian private sector to be unconscionable.

---

Try not to be "horrified." The pendulum swings both ways. Right now, teacher unions are viewed as inordinately manipulative, selfish and corrupt and society is correcting that. When educational employers abuse power, society will correct that too.

We've reached a point in which teacher union conduct has started to make many feel like schmucks, particularly those who work "normal" jobs or those who have risked capital in small businesses (and pay upwards of 40% in employment-related tax). The union conduct was tolerated more when it was sneaky self-interest but now...not so much. Teachers are now learning that they might consider reigning in their representatives (unions) and how they do business in view of the public. After all, the public is the employer.

93gobears;842324663 said:

---

Along those same lines.

I question anyone to provide me with an objective way to determine the "effectiveness" of teachers.

Student aptitude tests. Really?
Most kids would prefer to fart on their hands and smell it rather than take these politically driven tests.
Then you want to hire a bunch of Arthur Andersen flunkies now working as consultants for some hack group like Lockheed, or McKinsey to mine the data and determine how efficient our teachers are being year over year so that you can make hiring/firing decisions?

The root of this problem is management.
Management of teachers and school districts.
Management by parents over their snot nosed kids.
Management by the federal government which lets every Tom, Wang and Jose get a publicly funded education regardless of whether or not they can speak or understand English.

---

This issue hit a nerve, and most posters seem to have found bad players everywhere, from Wall Street , teachers, parents and even the kids. What is clear is no one seems satisfied with public education in this state. We have another home outside the state where there are very few private schools (for bizarre, the one private school in the town our house is located is just for Olympic athletes), and the locals actually like the local public school system, and generally the public schools systems in the State, including those in large urban areas. Its weird going through small towns in that State and seeing high schools that look like colleges. Teaches are held in high regard (really!), and no one is angry that they spend their summers hiking or whatever (the most surreal post has to be that teachers spend more time working than associates at large law firms).

There likely are many reasons why the public school system in California is viewed as terrible (my neighbors actually think our local district in Cali does a reasonably good job), but to universally condemn administrators, Wall Street, the Federal government, parents and even "snot-naosed" students as the culprits seems absurd when there are areas in this country that the pubic schools are doing the job, and they all have to deal with these purported evil doers. The problems need to be more specific to places in California where the public school system is considered inadequate.

OdontoBear66;842324668 said:

---

+1. A good example may be the automobile industry being brought down by excesses of unions in the state of Michigan, leaving Detroit a blight on the landscape. The union was essential pre- and slightly post- Taft Hartley (1947), but has long since outlived its necessity. Look at the automobile industry in the south, where it has moved. Non union, and I don't hear too many people screaming about abuses. Quite the contrary, they love the work. Unions "were" necessary at one time, now they create messes (both private and especially public ones)

---

Given the current crisis at GM (recall mess), I hardly think unions are to blame for excesses or bringing down the auto industry. That's pretty much 100% on management, the same people who decide on marketing, technology, R&D, etc. Unions can be their own worse enemy and they often don't help but blaming them for managements failure is short-sighted and frankly a little dumb.

CalZebra2012;842324691 said:

---

Try not to be "horrified." The pendulum swings both ways. Right now, teacher unions are viewed as inordinately manipulative, selfish and corrupt and society is correcting that. When educational employers abuse power, society will correct that too.

We've reached a point in which teacher union conduct has started to make many feel like schmucks, particularly those who work "normal" jobs or those who have risked capital in small businesses (and pay upwards of 40% in employment-related tax). The union conduct was tolerated more when it was sneaky self-interest but now...not so much. Teachers are now learning that they might consider reigning in their representatives (unions) and how they do business in view of the public. After all, the public is the employer.

---

I don't care how they are 'viewed.' I care about what is true.

The characterization of unions as 'sneaky' is disingenuous. It is strange to me that the union-side is sneaky when management is also at the negotiation table and must agree to whatever the contract stipulates.

A good contract protects management just as surely as it protects employees.

88Bear;842324720 said:

---

I don't care how they are 'viewed.' I care about what is true.

The characterization of unions as 'sneaky' is disingenuous. It is strange to me that the union-side is sneaky when management is also at the negotiation table and must agree to whatever the contract stipulates.

A good contract protects management just as surely as it protects employees.

---

My apologies. Allow me to rephrase. When the NEA pays "Revenant" Al Sharpton to spin teachers' interests in the context of civil rights - that's sneaky. Not secret but not exactly in full view.

And do go on not caring how things are viewed. We'll go on applauding the courts. NEA membership is already down 7%.

Parents are tired of teacher unions that fight vouchers and charter schools and wrap themselves in a cloak of nobility as they do it all "for the children." More is coming and its a breath of fresh air.:bravo

CalZebra2012;842324734 said:

---

My apologies. Allow me to rephrase. When the NEA pays "Revenant" Al Sharpton to spin teachers' interests in the context of civil rights - that's sneaky. Not secret but not exactly in full view.

And do go on not caring how things are viewed. We'll go on applauding the courts. NEA membership is already down 7%.

Parents are tired of teacher unions that fight vouchers and charter schools and wrap themselves in a cloak of nobility as they do it all "for the children." More is coming and its a breath of fresh air.:bravo

---

You are defining "we" extremely narrowly. I'm interested - are you a parent?

I am. I don't pretend to speak for all parents, but I am absolutely in support of public education. Personally, I find the biggest problems to not involve tenure, but rather funding. Those citing teacher salary are disingenuous IMO, the real measure is per capita student spending where California ranks in the bottom half of state spending per pupil. Teachers get paid fairly well considering the national averages, but California's cost of living is high and we have easily the highest classroom size on average.

88Bear;842324747 said:

---

You are defining "we" extremely narrowly. I'm interested - are you a parent?

I am. I don't pretend to speak for all parents, but I am absolutely in support of public education. Personally, I find the biggest problems to not involve tenure, but rather funding. Those citing teacher salary are disingenuous IMO, the real measure is per capita student spending where California ranks in the bottom half of state spending per pupil. Teachers get paid fairly well considering the national averages, but California's cost of living is high and we have easily the highest classroom size on average.

---

I have 5 kids, all adults now and I have several teachers in my family. I also substituted in a CA charter school a few years ago, passed the CSET's and was on the verge of changing over to full-time teaching (until the economy crashed) so I'm inclined to sympathize with teachers. And I'm in support of public education, which is distinctly separate from the court/union issue.

I think that money is important but not most important and I saw evidence of that while working in a charter school. I would also point out that Prop 13 represented a public revolt on the concept that throwing limitless tax dollars at public education makes it better (while it priced some citizens out of their homes).

wifeisafurd;842324699 said:

---

The problems need to be more specific to places in California where the public school system is considered inadequate.

---

You live in a dream. Ever been to an urban school where 75% of the kids live in single family homes, and 50% of the 5th grade kids live in a home where English is not used?

It's a societal problem. Not a teacher problem.

wifeisafurd;842324699 said:

---

This issue hit a nerve, and most posters seem to have found bad players everywhere, from Wall Street , teachers, parents and even the kids. What is clear is no one seems satisfied with public education in this state. We have another home outside the state where there are very few private schools (for bizarre, the one private school in the town our house is located is just for Olympic athletes), and the locals actually like the local public school system, and generally the public schools systems in the State, including those in large urban areas. Its weird going through small towns in that State and seeing high schools that look like colleges. Teaches are held in high regard (really!), and no one is angry that they spend their summers hiking or whatever (the most surreal post has to be that teachers spend more time working than associates at large law firms).

---

I live in a California city, just like you, where no one complains about the quality of teachers. People bitch and moan about parcel taxes, etc. But no one cares about two year tenureships for teachers here. If they are bad teachers, they'll get drummed out real quick. There is no reason any other school district can't do the same.

Like I said, the problem is societal, and management.

To pretend that a 2 year tenureship is the root of the problem is just asinine.

We live in a good area, with solid families that seriously care about the education of their children. Throwing money at it has nothing to do with the solution.

The problem is with the management of the educational institutions.

You obviously seem to have not grasped the political aspect of this ruling.

Ted Olsen does not get involved in any national litigation unless he can put his stamp on it (or can get a favorable judge).

Our second home is in Louisiana, they seem to like their public school system. But satisfaction does not mean equal. Last year our granddaughter graduated from High School. A third of the class graduated with a 3.7 Or higher GPA. The high school is ranked in the top 10% of all High Schools in the state. Our granddaughter's father (a Cal Business School graduate) commented to me that not one of the graduating class would make it at Cal. A harsh comment, but also probably accurate.
My wife graduated from high school in the same town and a few years later enrolled at LSU. She had to take two years of remedial classes to be able to take college level courses at LSU. Her high school had not prepared her for college level course work. In that town the purpose of High School is to prepare you for the military or to work at Cane's or motherhood. That's what the community expects and the school is successful. My high school prepared me for Cal, but it didn't prepare me for the military, a fast food career or parenthood. It was also successful by local standards but it wouldn't be in Louisiana.
This year I was back in that same town in Louisiana for Memorial Day weekend. However my visit with our grandchildren was curtailed because school administrators had decided not to observe the Memorial Day Holiday.
This allowed the school year to end on Wednesday, May 28th; if they had observed the Memorial Day Holiday the school year would have ended on Thursday May 29th which somehow was unacceptable to the school district and administrators. Since this decision could not save money (actually it should have increased costs from working on a Federal Holiday); this decision can best be described as arbitrary. Even though Louisiana spends more per student than California (about 20% more in 2011), I would doubt that the results are superior or comparable (if you don't include sports or cheerleading).

wifeisafurd;842324699 said:

---

This issue hit a nerve, and most posters seem to have found bad players everywhere, from Wall Street , teachers, parents and even the kids. What is clear is no one seems satisfied with public education in this state. We have another home outside the state where there are very few private schools (for bizarre, the one private school in the town our house is located is just for Olympic athletes), and the locals actually like the local public school system, and generally the public schools systems in the State, including those in large urban areas. Its weird going through small towns in that State and seeing high schools that look like colleges. Teaches are held in high regard (really!), and no one is angry that they spend their summers hiking or whatever (the most surreal post has to be that teachers spend more time working than associates at large law firms).

There likely are many reasons why the public school system in California is viewed as terrible (my neighbors actually think our local district in Cali does a reasonably good job), but to universally condemn administrators, Wall Street, the Federal government, parents and even "snot-nosed" students as the culprits seems absurd when there are areas in this country that the pubic schools are doing the job, and they all have to deal with these purported evil doers. The problems need to be more specific to places in California where the public school system is considered inadequate.

---

The good news for you:
Kal is slowly turning into a better school. You all are learning from cases like these what it takes to improve.
Having Stanford as a rival has helped you learn what it takes to become elite. Watching your rival, Stanford, overtake Harvard as the #1 institution in the nation (most selective, most fund-raising per year) has helped you to improve, too.
I am confident you are heading in the right direction.

StanRedrum;842324794 said:

---

The good news for you:
Kal is slowly turning into a better school. You all are learning from cases like these what it takes to improve.
Having Stanford as a rival has helped you learn what it takes to become elite. Watching your rival, Stanford, overtake Harvard as the #1 institution in the nation (most selective, most fund-raising per year) has helped you to improve, too.
I am confident you are heading in the right direction.

---

wifeisafurd, do you have a response?

You're not hearing any arguments for why tenure is warranted because there aren't any.

The concept of tenure is outdated - it so was supposed to be for university profs so they could have academic freedom. Somehow, read teachers' unions, it crept into K-12 where teachers teach a rote curriculum.

It surreal to read letters in CA newspapers where people are making long-winded arguments against the Vergara ruling. Put simply - tenure after 18 months is utterly ridiculous. Even teachers when polled, are overwhelmingly against it.

And how about all of our heroic CA politicians who whine constantly about income inequality - but simply do nothing to reform public education because they are in bed with the teachers' unions?? Our public schools are ranked 45th and it's a disgrace.

Btw- the gent who is currently running for CA Superintendent of Instruction to unseat the union guy Tom Torlakson, Marshall Tuck, is a UCLA grad and his dad went to Cal.

beelzebear;842324719 said:

---

Given the current crisis at GM (recall mess), I hardly think unions are to blame for excesses or bringing down the auto industry. That's pretty much 100% on management, the same people who decide on marketing, technology, R&D, etc. Unions can be their own worse enemy and they often don't help but blaming them for managements failure is short-sighted and frankly a little dumb.

---

Different folks, different strokes. When you have to try to sell a GM car with over a thousand dollars (close to two thousand) in each car going to union pension plans, I say wrong. You think right. Fine. Salary should be reasonable. Making "Buy American" tough is wrong. The culprit is the unions, not management. All depends which lenses at which you look at life.

sp4149;842324780 said:

---

Our second home is in Louisiana, they seem to like their public school system. But satisfaction does not mean equal. Last year our granddaughter graduated from High School. A third of the class graduated with a 3.7 Or higher GPA. The high school is ranked in the top 10% of all High Schools in the state. Our granddaughter's father (a Cal Business School graduate) commented to me that not one of the graduating class would make it at Cal. A harsh comment, but also probably accurate.
My wife graduated from high school in the same town and a few years later enrolled at LSU. She had to take two years of remedial classes to be able to take college level courses at LSU. Her high school had not prepared her for college level course work. In that town the purpose of High School is to prepare you for the military or to work at Cane's or motherhood. That's what the community expects and the school is successful. My high school prepared me for Cal, but it didn't prepare me for the military, a fast food career or parenthood. It was also successful by local standards but it wouldn't be in Louisiana.
This year I was back in that same town in Louisiana for Memorial Day weekend. However my visit with our grandchildren was curtailed because school administrators had decided not to observe the Memorial Day Holiday.
This allowed the school year to end on Wednesday, May 28th; if they had observed the Memorial Day Holiday the school year would have ended on Thursday May 29th which somehow was unacceptable to the school district and administrators. Since this decision could not save money (actually it should have increased costs from working on a Federal Holiday); this decision can best be described as arbitrary. Even though Louisiana spends more per student than California (about 20% more in 2011), I would doubt that the results are superior or comparable (if you don't include sports or cheerleading).

---

So take the opposite of that. The quote of "California schools are terrible is being debated". They aren't, but they aren't for motivated students. Any student fast tracking in AP courses in most all California public schools is probably winding up with a great HS education in four years. If you are not on the AP track, education in California is dumbed down unbelievably. You do not need to leave good public schools (with some exceptions granted) in California if your student is fast tracking. Teaching is good, course material is tough, grades are tough. It is the "oranges at halftime" students who are getting the short end of the deal.

We have a family member who took AP Euro as a soph---tough, tough course. Worked overtime. Did reasonably well. Took USHistory (not AP) as a junior---studying is a joke, grades are easy. Same student, same HS, different curriculum. It can be done.

93gobears;842324764 said:

---

You live in a dream. Ever been to an urban school where 75% of the kids live in single family homes, and 50% of the 5th grade kids live in a home where English is not used?

It's a societal problem. Not a teacher problem.

---

1000X correct.

Reading this thread makes me think I'm reading a Stanford blog.

CalZebra2012 - interesting. You certainly have skin in the game. I don't totally agree with you, but I can respect your take. I also got my teaching credential 18 years ago, then promptly got another job given our financial situation. I think education gets blamed for problems which are completely outside the bounds of its direct sphere of influence (I think 93gobears is absolutely correct.) Public schools deal with a cross section of students which completely skew the results of many campuses.

Personally, I think Prop 13 has had disastrous consequences in California. Much like tenure, it is a subject which does not have to be abolished, but rather tweaked. Prop 13 was the beginning of the end for California's public school system - a system which had been, up to that point, the envy of the entire world.

It's hard to normalize education results by test scores or comparison with other states.

When you google states that are ranked tops in education by test scores and other objective criteria, here is the list.

Mass, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnestota, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington

Is there any relation between these states and unions and tenure? I suspect not. They are on the whole liberal places. Maybe there are differences in management or organization or spending?

What jumps out to me is that they are not anywhere as diverse or have as much inequality as we do?

39% of our population is Hispanic and many of them don't speak English and are poor. There is only one other state that has a hispanic population that is even half of ours-Florida-and I expect those may be educated second or third generation Cubans. These states also tend to have a higher percentage of residents that are college educated which is another key indicator of success of the next generation. Thirty nine % of Mass residents are college educated; about thirty % of California's residents

Hell it's even hard to compare schools in state because of such great differences at the margins. If your kid is in Palo Alto or Cupertino schools he/she probably gets one of the better educations in the country. So when people complain about California's schools mostly what they mean is "my school is fine" if I'm white (or Asian) but the others suck and it's the teachers fault.

88Bear;842324813 said:

---

1000X correct.

Reading this thread makes me think I'm reading a Stanford blog.

CalZebra2012 - interesting. You certainly have skin in the game. I don't totally agree with you, but I can respect your take. I also got my teaching credential 18 years ago, then promptly got another job given our financial situation. I think education gets blamed for problems which are completely outside the bounds of its direct sphere of influence (I think 93gobears is absolutely correct.) Public schools deal with a cross section of students which completely skew the results of many campuses.

Personally, I think Prop 13 has had disasterous consequences in California. Much like tenure, it is a subject which does not have to be abolished, but rather tweaked. Prop 13 was the beginning of the end for California's public school system - a system which had been, up to that point, the envy of the entire world.

---

I hear what you're saying. There are a lot of competing priorities for the tax money. I'm probably biased in that my grandmother was a single mom (who raised me as well) and she worked 30 years to pay off her mortgage in a very physical and low paying job. She was quite pleased with Jarvis-Gann.

93gobears;842324764 said:

---

You live in a dream. Ever been to an urban school where 75% of the kids live in single family homes, and 50% of the 5th grade kids live in a home where English is not used?

It's a societal problem. Not a teacher problem.

---

Where did I say what are the causes of problems in my post? My guess is you have not been to any of these schools if your simplistic answer is to blame it all on society. But I have taught at LAUSD school in a minority area, if that meets your criteria. A number of associates at my former law school were roped into teaching at a school our law firm "adopted" and that bears the last name of the founder of the firm. I found the kids not snot nosed as you so delicately put it, but excited and interactive to learn about the law and our legal system.

Your dream world seems to think these societal issues have never existed in US schools. Waves of immigration have occurred persistently in this country, as have perverse urban economic conditions, and yet the schools managed to function then. Remove your blinders.

93gobears;842324797 said:

---

wifeisafurd, do you have a response?

---

I might add Attorney Olson went to Cal, not Furd, and therefore will kick any constitutional attorney Furd has to offer-up.

93gobears;842324769 said:

---

I live in a California city, just like you, where no one complains about the quality of teachers. People bitch and moan about parcel taxes, etc. But no one cares about two year tenureships for teachers here. If they are bad teachers, they'll get drummed out real quick. There is no reason any other school district can't do the same.

Like I said, the problem is societal, and management.

To pretend that a 2 year tenureship is the root of the problem is just asinine.

We live in a good area, with solid families that seriously care about the education of their children. Throwing money at it has nothing to do with the solution.

The problem is with the management of the educational institutions.

You obviously seem to have not grasped the political aspect of this ruling.

Ted Olsen does not get involved in any national litigation unless he can put his stamp on it (or can get a favorable judge).

---

Or my post. No where do I mention tenure is the problem. In contrast, the decision discusses school districts that can't get rid of lousy teachers and therefore dump them into poor and minority schools and other similar abuses. I didn't even mention the decision in the post you take issue with. Yet, as I said in my post, which you seem not to have read, people here have blamed all sorts of evils: parents, teachers, administrators, and on and on (we can now add society in general thanks to your last post) for poor school performance. Yet the other state has urban schools that don't have the poor performance. The largest school district has a huge hispanic population and therefore language issues, and doesn't have poor results. You seem to think everything is a national conspiracy and national causes in order to fit your agenda. Lot's of urban public schools do just fine, but no one seems to think California does a good overall job, and we need to look at those troubled school districts in this state to find out why rather than playing the one size fits all blame game. For example, the problem might not be tenure at all, or may be just the way tenure is used in certain districts. I didn't even discuss tenure or target teachers. Read the f@ckin post before you launch next tine.

Happy Father's Day, guys. We are not solving a darn thing with all this bickering or even convincing a single poster to change his mind.