Red Mosquito

So I read that article. It's interesting and could potentially create support for me getting paid more to continue teaching, but it may as well have been written by teachers' union reps. It seemed like there was a lot of technically accurate but intentionally misleading information.

Edit: This isn't to say that teachers should or shouldn't get paid more, just that there was obvious cherry-picking of data without offering the sometimes simple and obvious context that could take away from the basic claim made by the front cover.

4/5 wrote:So I read that article. It's interesting and could potentially create support for me getting paid more to continue teaching, but it may as well have been written by teachers' union reps. It seemed like there was a lot of technically accurate but intentionally misleading information.

Edit: This isn't to say that teachers should or shouldn't get paid more, just that there was obvious cherry-picking of data without offering the sometimes simple and obvious context that could take away from the basic claim made by the front cover.

There has to be a better way to measure teacher performance than time served and masters degrees in education.

The idea that one has to go study someone else’s theory of education to teach someone else how to do something well is a little silly. There are so many things that effect student scoring that teachers can’t help (Parental Involvement, Food, Shelter, home life....)

The other issue here is inflation. No one wants to admit it, and economists say it isn’t happening, but a teachers salary simply isn’t enough to live on anymore, especially if you have kids.

In most places anyway.

So much is wasted building stadiums and paying administration.

The people in control of the purse strings are the ones benefiting from the bad model.

There has to be a better way to measure teacher performance than time served and masters degrees in education.

Absolutely agree with this. But then again, “there has to be a better way” is a true statement regarding just about everything in public education.

California taking active steps to make teaching easier:

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/04 ... ll-senate/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-giv ... 1557999000

Bi_3 wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-giv ... 1557999000

Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-giv ... 1557999000

Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

It's just proxies for race

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-giv ... 1557999000

Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

It's just proxies for race

It should be visible to the student nd not a secret.

Intersectionality at its best:

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Ne ... t_Yale.pdf

4/5 wrote:Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

This would be better to expound upon in the Constitution thread if we ever decide to get back to reviving that, but Justices Powell and O'Connor have really made a mess of affirmative action by forcing schools to jump through all kinds of convoluted schemes to get to what everyone knows is the obvious goal.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

This would be better to expound upon in the Constitution thread if we ever decide to get back to reviving that, but Justices Powell and O'Connor have really made a mess of affirmative action by forcing schools to jump through all kinds of convoluted schemes to get to what everyone knows is the obvious goal.

I'm familiar with the tortured reasoning of O'Connor's Grutter and Gratz opinions, less so with Powell's contributions. Did he write the Bakke opinion?

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

This would be better to expound upon in the Constitution thread if we ever decide to get back to reviving that, but Justices Powell and O'Connor have really made a mess of affirmative action by forcing schools to jump through all kinds of convoluted schemes to get to what everyone knows is the obvious goal.

I'm familiar with the tortured reasoning of O'Connor's Grutter and Gratz opinions, less so with Powell's contributions. Did he write the Bakke opinion?

He wrote the controlling opinion, yes.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Idk. It seems like a more nuanced approach than simple race-based affirmative action. It isn't as if schools don't already look at these sorts of factors in an effort to promote diversity on campus. The adversity score doesn't changes students' actual SAT score, it just attempts to quantify something schools are looking at anyway.

This would be better to expound upon in the Constitution thread if we ever decide to get back to reviving that, but Justices Powell and O'Connor have really made a mess of affirmative action by forcing schools to jump through all kinds of convoluted schemes to get to what everyone knows is the obvious goal.

I'm familiar with the tortured reasoning of O'Connor's Grutter and Gratz opinions, less so with Powell's contributions. Did he write the Bakke opinion?

He wrote the controlling opinion, yes.

All I really know about Bakke is the backstory and that it disallowed quota systems.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 12107.html

State as parent

Edit: I love how they prioritize the shitty kids over the well behaved ones.

That's a terrible idea.

My kid's school is doing swim lessons for the 2nd grade. Some parents complained about the loss of academic time, so their kids have to go to another class and do work while their friends go swimming.

Parents are shit.

Bi_3 wrote:https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 12107.html

State as parent

Edit: I love how they prioritize the shitty kids over the well behaved ones.

Pretty pointless to suspend K-5. I don't know about middle school.

run2death wrote:That's a terrible idea.

It’s as bad our local superintendent who was so concerned about dropout rates among immigrants he told the school board to remind them they are allowed to stay in high school until they are 21. The solution is not to expand English learning classes or do community outreach, it’s to put 20 year olds in classrooms with 13 year olds.