Judge Samuel McAdam made a play at balancing the first amendment rights of Jose Granda and Tom Randall who oppose Measure C, the school parcel tax, with the need for accuracy in the ballot arguments.
The judge ordered several sentences deleted from the ballot argument, while at the same time leaving intact some of the sentences that former Yolo County Clerk-Recorder Tony Bernhard had objected to.
The critical portion that was struck was, “This mail election is a questionable undemocratic process which significantly reduces oversight to maintain the integrity of an election. It eliminates the poll workers and observers from both sides so there is a lack of independent supervision during the opening and counting of ballots.”
Judge McAdams ruled that the notion regarding observers was demonstrably false, as well as the reference to “vote counting” which he ruled to be false and misleading.
The judge ruled that “the mail-in election does not eliminate ‘observers from both sides so there is a lack of independent supervision during opening and counting the ballots,’ ” as the opposition had contended.
Mr. Granda and Mr. Randall had also claimed, “During Measure A, 16,033 ballots were opened and counted before the polls closed.”
Judge McAdams found this to be similarly misleading.
“The evidence shows that no votes were counted and tallied prior to the close of the polls. The ballots had been entered into the computer and counted – but the votes had not been counted and tallied,” he ruled. “No one, not even election officials, knew the results of the election until after the official close of the polls. This phrase shall be stricken from the rebuttal argument.”
At the same time, the judge rejected Mr. Bernhard’s general contention that sections of the ballot argument should be struck merely because they were off-topic and dealt with the all-mail ballot rather than the substance of the measure itself.
He restricted any interference on free speech to statements that were clearly and demonstrably false and misleading.
The judge ruled, “Granda’s argument in the ballot initiative attacking the mail-in process is his opinion and is permissible, to a certain extent. Granda is well within his right to challenge the mail-in procedure. The substance and procedure of any election are inherently relevant to each other. The voters will decide whether his opinion and argument have any merit.”
In the end, while neither side got exactly what they wanted, it does represent a relatively fair ruling and it presents a fairly clear line of demarcation for ballot arguments.
Those statements that are demonstrably false and misleading were stricken.
Those statements that were not demonstrably false and misleading, but were instead the opinions of the authors of the opposing ballot argument were permissible, even when off-topic.
The judge’s ruling that the voters can decide whether this opinion has merit or whether it is relevant is exactly on point.
There are some that will question whether Mr. Bernhard and Ms. Oakley should have stepped in to challenge this in court. Clearly this is within their purview, but it perhaps would have been better had the proponents of Measure C been the ones to challenge this.
The bigger problem for the challengers to Measure C is not the legal challenge, but in fact the electoral one.
The amazing fact is that, even after their arguments were shown by Tony Bernhard in court documents to be false and misleading, in a letter to the editor, Mr. Granda continues making the same point.
As we argued earlier this week, it is not only untrue but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding for how the process of opening a vote-by-mail ballot works. They are opened in a transparent manner in a process that has a good deal of oversight, including over the possibility of public viewing – just as they have when they count election night ballots.
As Tony Bernhard, who understands this process better than most and certainly better than Jose Granda, who gets his facts completely wrong, writes, “All mailed ballot elections are conducted lawfully in accordance with California Elections Code Sections 4000-4108 (pertaining to all mailed ballot elections) and Sections 9100-9168 (pertaining to county elections).”
He continues, “Contrary to the assertions contained in these Arguments, there is no diminution or abrogation of the opportunity of supporters and opponents to observe all aspects of the election process.”
Furthermore, he writes, “Observers are welcomed to observe any and all parts of the election process, including the signature verification, opening and counting of mailed ballots.”
The judge settled the question as to whether there is a constitutional right to make false and misleading comments on ballot statements – there is not. But he left enough wiggle room on opinions, so as not to stifle the opinions of the minority.
This is certainly an opinion and a ruling we can all live with. And Mr. Granda and Mr. Randall are left with trying to convince the public why they should not renew the parcel tax.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]There are some that will question whether Mr. Bernhard and Ms. Oakley should have stepped in to challenge this in court. Clearly this is within their purview, but it perhaps would have been better had the proponents of Measure C been the ones to challenge this.[/quote]
Why do you think it would have been better for the proponents of Measure C to challenge this, rather than Mr. Bernhard/Ms. Oakley? It would seem to me, the proponents of Measure C would have seemed more partisan, whereas Mr. Bernhard/Ms. Oakley are more objective/have no stake in the outcome of the vote on Measure C.
In a court of law it wouldn’t have mattered whether the Measure C proponents were partisan, the law is what matters. I think it would have been better for the county clerk to have allowed the two parties to the election settle this rather than have a third party intervene, but it was a minor point.
This ballot argument controversy is all a non-issue. The last school measure barely squeaked by and this one will be tight too. With the economy still sputtering, the increased costs of the last school measure and the upcoming increase in water costs this will be a tough sell.
Rusty:
I agree that this is largely a non-issue, especially now that it is settled.
However, I disagree that this will be tight. The last one was a tax increase of $200, this is just an extension of the last with a CPI inflator. Bruce Colby told me that the other parcel taxes also had CPI inflators, they were just embedded into the numbers, this one leaves it a bit more open-ended.
There were also a series of errors that I don’t think will be repeated.
My prediction is this one will not be that close.
Another accurate report from David. Just for the record, from the very beginning I offered Granda and Randall the language that the judge ultimately ordered. Granda repeatedly refused to have a civilized discussion about amending his argument to remove the false and misleading language. I would ALWAYS prefer diplomacy to litigation, but Granda seemed to relish the public hoopla. For Bernhard and me, this was not a side issue. The integrity of elections in Yolo County is pretty much my life’s work, and I will never stand by and see it belittled or impugned. I am a fighter if I need to be.
This is all silly to fight over, because everyone knows the tax will pass, it always does. Davis is a knee Jerk liberal town that always supports the school tax, even when the school board acts in bad faith.
I don’t think the process is undemocratic or unfair the way randall and Granada claim. However, I do agree with their claim the board’s merely calling this a “renewal of the existing tax” while adding an extra 320 and a CPI inflator is misleading.
Vote yes on C. More resources equates to better outcomes for the children.
[quote]Another accurate report from David. Just for the record, from the very beginning I offered Granda and Randall the language that the judge ultimately ordered. Granda repeatedly refused to have a civilized discussion about amending his argument to remove the false and misleading language. I would ALWAYS prefer diplomacy to litigation, but Granda seemed to relish the public hoopla. For Bernhard and me, this was not a side issue. The integrity of elections in Yolo County is pretty much my life’s work, and I will never stand by and see it belittled or impugned. I am a fighter if I need to be.[/quote]
I agree that the integrity of the elections in Yolo County was at stake here, and you were the proper party in interst to object to the ballot language. Good work!
“However, I do agree with their claim the board’s merely calling this a “renewal of the existing tax” while adding an extra 320 and a CPI inflator is misleading.”
A CPI inflator means that the cost is constant in real dollars.
It does not add an extra $320, it simply extends the next parcel tax for five years. The original parcel tax – Measure Q was also five years. They then added Measure W in 2008 and made it so it would sunset at the same time as Measure Q so they could combine the measures if needed.
“A CPI inflator means that the cost is constant in real dollars.”
You mean constant in inflation adjusted dollars.
But so what! Vote yes on C so the kids can have the education they need to become the best people possible.
Remember its never too early to invest in the kids.
[i]”The last school measure barely squeaked by and this one will be tight too.”[/i]
I agree with Rusty. I think it will pass, but it should be close. Last time I guessed it right down to 0.1%. I don’t yet have a numerical guess yet for this measure. But I would start with the notion that the yes side, which needs 66.67%, will likely get no more than 70.0% and no less than 64%.
There are a number of factors, some objective, some subjective, which I think will motivate nearly one-third of Davis voters to put their ✓ check mark on “no.”
1. Our economy in the Sacramento region is still very weak. Some people, who are unemployed, underemployed or fear for their future income, will vote no because they don’t want to pay a bill they cannot afford. Even though it is a bill they are already paying, gettig rid of it may provide some relief;
2. Our housing market is still weak, compared with where it was just 4 years ago. A loss in home values, even for those who have no plans to sell, has the effect of making people feel poorer. So even for those residents who are gainfully employed or comfortably retired, the feeling of loss of wealth will make some feel less interested in paying a tax which they can vote no on;
3. Some voters in Davis (20%?) are anti-tax conservatives or libertarians and will vote no on that principle. For what it is worth, this is the partisan registration breakdown among Davis voters:
Democrat — 21,039, 54.19%
No preference — 9,730, 25.06%
Republican — 5,980, 15.40%
Am. Independent* — 719, 1.85%
Green** — 691, 1.78%
Other — 352, 0.91%
Libertarian — 237, 0.61%
[u]Peace & Freedom — 80, 0.21%[/u]
Total — 38,828, 100.00%
*The AI Party is a conservative, anti-immigration, individualist, anti-statist, pro-gun, traditionalist, isolationist group when it comes to political philosophy. (Think Pat Buchanan.) There are more members of AI than the Greens or the Libertarians. Yet I cannot help but think that many people across the country who register AI do so thinking that they are registering “independent” and don’t understand that the American Independent Party is not the same as lower-case independent.
**It surprises me how few people on the left register as Green. I think some register as Democrats for practical reasons. And perhaps some would-be Greens prefer “no preference.” We also have a left-wing party in California called “Peace & Freedom.” They have had even less luck getting lefties to join up.
4. Some voters have a more narrow reason to oppose school taxes: they send their kids to private schools? they have no kids? their kids did not fare well in the Davis schools? they don’t like the Davis Teachers Association? they don’t like how the DJUSD has spent its funds or how it will spend the money from this tax?
5. Some voters will mistakenly ✓ the no box when they intended to vote yes. There will not be many of these, but the Bush-Gore election enlightened me to the fact that some voters make mistakes of this kind.
When you add up the various factors for the no vote this year–some no voters will find multiple reasons to vote no–I think you will get a base of about 26%. On the other hand, I think the base of the yes vote is around 64%. What will decide the final percentages are the effectiveness of the campaigns and hence who turns out.
[i]”Remember its never too early to invest in the kids.”[/i]
That sounds like teacher union-speak for “give this money to teachers.” And because of Toad’s union, it also means, “don’t pay us based on performance. Pay us based on “years of butts in seats.”
Mr. Toad: [i]”Remember its never too early to invest in the kids.”[/i]
Rifkin: [i]That sounds like teacher union-speak for “give this money to teachers.” And because of Toad’s union, it also means, “don’t pay us based on performance. Pay us based on “years of butts in seats.”[/i]
Or it means that there is money to pay an extra teacher as a reading aid to reinforce reading instruction to 1st-3rd graders in danger of not reading on prescribed grade level. Or the ability to have a dedicated person run lab science for the elementary. Or the opportunity to have beginning music instruction in the elementary. Programs=teachers/staff.
I suspect that if DTA had their preference as to what to fund, it probably would not be the same as what is proposed. I think heavier parent/community involvement in Davis serves to restrain certain union impulses that offend some. In districts where parents are not as involved, then there is more of a power vacuum.
DMG: [i]It does not add an extra $320, it simply extends the next parcel tax for five years. The original parcel tax – Measure Q was also five years.[/i]
Measure Q was passed in November 2007, and had a term of [b]4 years[/b]. Measure W passed in November 2008, and had a term of 3 years. Both expire at the end of the current school/fiscal year on June 30.
When Measures Q & W passed, the terms were set to coincide with school board election cycles. After W passed, the school board set school board terms to coincide with even year general elections, in order to save money for running elections. Measure C is set so that it would expire in conjunction with a school board election in an even year.
The reason that school board elections were shifted was to save money on election costs in the long term. Each entity is responsible for paying Yolo County Elections for the cost to run its elections. The more entities that participate in an election, the lower is each portion of the cost.
Croak: [i]”More resources equates to better outcomes for the children”[/i]
There is no correlation between spending and outcomes other than outcomes for the teachers union.
JB: [i]There is no correlation between spending and outcomes other than outcomes for the teachers union.[/i]
If that were true, then we could make the budget of DJUSD $1.00 and expect excellent outcomes. After all there should be no correlation, right?
JB: It depends on how you spend the money. $200 spent well would likely yield better outcomes than just $100 spent well. But clearly, $100 spent well would yield better outcomes than $200 spent stupidly.
I’m actually surprised you’re using that argument. It seems like the fallacy would be obvious to you by now.
[i]”There is no correlation between spending and outcomes other than outcomes for the teachers union.”[/i]
I Googled this and found that there are a number of academic studies on this question. Having looked at the conclusions of a few of them (very briefly) it seems like the strongest correlation is this: if your district has a lot of kids from poor backgrounds*, your test scores will suck. If your district has few kids from poor backgrounds, your test scores will be good. It does not seem to matter too much whether your district spends a lot–as most large urban districts do–or whether your discrict spends much less.
*I did not find a study which looked more deeply at the “poor background.” They seem to use “qualified for a free lunch” as poor. I would bet, though, that you could see differences among those who come from a “poor background” if you seperate sub-groups based on a cultural background. That is, those low-income students whose families come from, say Vietnam (and are not Hmong), will do better than those equally low-income students who come from the Philippines (and are not Chinese). The cultural differences–that is, how much education is valued at home–will make a big difference on a group level. (Obviously, every group has its exceptions, good and bad.)
wdf: Apparently my math was off. I figured passed in 2007 and expiring in 2012 was five years. Forgot to account for the beginning of the term.
Ok wdf1, how about this then… there is no comensurate value correlation for additional dollars spent on the current public education system.
If I spend another $1 and only get $.35 in value, then the transaction would not be a good one for me.
Some of the states with the lowest spending per student have the best outcomes. MOST of the states with the highest spending per student have the worst outcomes.
Here is something you should read:
[url]http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5741.html[/url]
Go Lean!
For Davis as a district, as to whether our students will do better or worse with Measure C or without it is likely, in my opinion, slightly worse. But the reason is not simply that this money benefits the kids. It’s that the District will unwisely spend the remaining money that it has. Instead of distributing funds such that the most worthy programs and the most worthy individual teachers get what we have, our District of the DTA, for the DTA and by the DTA will reward the butts-in-seats of the DTA and never pay for performance.
Bad sentence: “For Davis as a district, as to whether our students will do [s]better or[/s] worse [u]without[/u] Measure C [s]or without it[/s] is likely, in my opinion, slightly worse.”
Sorry. Fixed.
[i]”It’s that the District will unwisely spend the remaining money that it has.”[/i]
In fact I make the argument that past history of this a big reason why we even require a Measure C.
There is a nuanced but vast difference in supplier operational mindset when the supplier is funded rather than the customer. Money is power. The union-controlled education system has the power and operates with a shrinking service level ajusted to their growing revenue appetite. With vouchers in hand and choice, the students (parents) would have the power to demand value commensurate with costs.
That sounds like teacher union-speak for “give this money to teachers.”
Actually its the voice of a parent and CTA member (in another district) who pays quite dearly to have his kid in the best public schools around. One who doesn’t mind paying an additional extra to employ the people who toil away serving the children of the community. All this nonsense about no correlation between cost and outcomes is just that. Please show me where are the schools that serve all comers that do well that do it for less than than poorer districts?
Rifkin: [i]For Davis as a district, as to whether our students will do better or worse with Measure C or without it is likely, in my opinion, slightly worse. But the reason is not simply that this money benefits the kids. It’s that the District will unwisely spend the remaining money that it has. Instead of distributing funds such that the most worthy programs and the most worthy individual teachers get what we have, our District of the DTA, for the DTA and by the DTA will reward the butts-in-seats of the DTA and never pay for performance.[/i]
You can look at other school districts that haven’t passed parcel taxes and/or done community fundraising as a guide for what would probably be cut if the money weren’t there. This whole budget exercise (cutting education budgets over the past few years and ongoing), as it’s playing out over the state, is one big experiment in educational economics. Different districts will make different choices. The results will probably come in 5-10 years from now, but that doesn’t inform the choices that we make now.
As far as paying individual teachers for individual performance, do you have something in mind that would still incentivize collaboration? And I question if there is a good assessment method right now. I see some districts making efforts in that direction, but also plenty of good, reasonable criticism. This is a more popular case — link ([url]”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07winerip.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=evaluating new york teachers&st=cse”[/url]).
Principals are responsible hiring their teachers, and right now it’s an employer’s market. In Davis, in the past 3-4 years, I have observed in a handful of new teachers who were hired that they have several years of experience in another district (typically let go because of budget cuts), and a solid track record. Because Davis has been fortunate enough to maintain more stable funding, I suspect that they’ve improved their overall quality, and would continue to do so if that local stability can be optimized.
In an employee’s market, the district would have to invest more in teacher mentoring and would have to tolerate more beginners’ efforts.
Rich: [i]our District … will reward the butts-in-seats of the DTA and never pay for performance.[/i]
Are you saying the district will be giving the teachers raises?
Also, just curious: do you support Measure C?
JB: [i]Go Lean![/i]
California schools were doing that before the recession. I suspect that they are even leaner now. See p. 47, Table 4.7 at this link ([url]”http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_107TGR.pdf”[/url]). California has some of the lowest staffing ratios of teachers, administrators, and support staff.
wdf1: From the article:
[quote]”Some people think lean means ‘not fat,’ as in laying people off,” Upton says, noting that in their paper they propose that the difference in a lean operating system comes from how it alters the way a company learns through changes in problem solving, coordination, and standardization.[/quote]
I think you should like the concept here because it calls for lean managment too with more empowered employees and self-managing work teams. It is a more bottom-up approach to planning and problem solving… as an ongoing process.
However, it still requires leadership to explain the vision and build the momentum for change.
It is still focused on delivering the greatest possible customer value… again something that is a change from the current model and it would require strong leadership to force the paradigm change.
[i]”Are you saying the district will be giving the teachers raises?”[/i]
I am saying that the District pays teachers more money if they have been on the job longer–that is, based on how long one’s tushey has been in the cushy. They don’t pay based on performance.
It has always seemed to me that if a teacher can measure a student’s performance–that is, give him a grade–then the teacher’s performance can be measured and at least a portion of her remuneration should be based on how good of a teacher she is.
I think critics of pay-for-performance have shown that there are some flaws in virtually every teacher metric. I concede that. For that reason it would be unwise to have most of a teacher’s pay determined by the judgment of her performance.
But when you combine peer review, principal review, perhaps a small amount of parental review and how much most of a teacher’s students progressed based on standard tests, you can rate teachers and reward the best of them for doing the best job.
I know it is subjective–almost all employment reviews, regardless of your job, are subjective to some degree–but based on my experience I don’t think it is all that hard to say with confidence who the best teachers are and who the worst are and which ones fall in the middle. I know which teachers I had who were the best. I know which ones–including the two inebriated teachers I had at Davis High–were the worst.
Ideally, with a teacher rating system in place, the District (or the principal) would have those “best” teachers mentoring and otherwise helping those teachers who need to get better.
Another thing everyone knows is that some personalities don’t work in the classroom, while others are just innately good. Hopefully a decent rating system would help to weed out those people who don’t have natural teaching skills and encourage those who do to stay.
Designing a useful performance management system simply requires one to understand the “what gets measured gets done” principle.
Define all the demonstrated attributes (behaviors, actions, outcomes) of a great teacher, and then design the measures around that. For example, if a great teacher is defined by one being the most collaborative and helpful to other teachers, then do 360 degree anonymous teacher peer surveys that asks the question:
– Did the teacher meet your expectations for being helpful and collaborative: Y N n/a?
If great teachers should engage students, then asks the students and/or the parents:
– Did the teacher meet your expectations for keeping the student interested and engaged in the subject matter: Y N?
Although these are subjective questions, their results can be quantified from a sizable dataset. They can also be trended. For example, if a teacher gets a lot of “N” assessments, this can be tageted as an improvement requirement. If the teacher knows he/she will be measured on it, the good ones will find a way to get more “Y”s next time.
The boss (the principle) should write and conduct the final review and performance grade, but incorporate and make available all survey/assessment data to the teacher. Interesting isn’t it that this is the same approach we would like our teachers to take with their students?
This is really is not rocket science. We in the private sector do this stuff all the time and it works! The employees that complain about it are the ones that are low performers in the wrong job or wrong career but unwilling to accept it.
Rich: [i]I am saying that the District pays teachers more money if they have been on the job longer[/i]
I assume you are referring to step increases.
From the DJUSD FAQ’s:
“Are step and column increases still in place for district employees? If so, what is the cost and how is it paid?
Step and column increases remain in place. The annual cost for all employees is $700,000 from the general operating fund. In normal years, 30-50% of this would be defrayed by teacher retirements, that is, the salary difference between a new and a senior teacher. The remainder would have been covered by cost of living adjustment (COLA) to the district’s state funding. The state has not fully funded COLA since 2007.
For the 2010-11 school year, the Davis Teachers Association requested and was given a teacher retirement incentive to accelerate retirement savings to decrease layoffs of less senior teachers. The district offered a cost neutral incentive paid over five years by these savings. During this period, retirement savings are not available to fund step and column increases.
To address future funding shortfalls, the Board of Education acted last spring to negotiate new contracts that eliminate automatic step increases for administrators.”
Two districts that have implemented performance pay: [url]http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues/issues374c.shtml[/url]
“I am saying that the District pays teachers more money if they have been on the job longer–that is, based on how long one’s tushey has been in the cushy. They don’t pay based on performance. “
Why is this relevant to measure C?
Of course you would expect that teachers get better with experience.
Even if you think this change is needed why would you draw the line here? Fighting institutional inertia by opposing measure C is like building a wall around a sand castle.
“It has always seemed to me that if a teacher can measure a student’s performance–that is, give him a grade–then the teacher’s performance can be measured and at least a portion of her remuneration should be based on how good of a teacher she is. “
Why do you think k-12 students and parents are equipped to make such judgments? Say you have a high expectations teacher demanding better work from students made complacent by low expectations, This teacher is likely to get bad evaluations from these students. Imagine that teacher is the only one in their lives telling them they have got to work harder, produce better work. Oh they hate that teacher, no bonus for you, but, the teacher who gave the easy A, take it to the bank!
When I was teaching the best students it was easy and the grades were good, the progress excellent and everybody was happy oh yeah and science and math credentials. High scores, low supply subjects, pay me my bonus! When I moved to low skilled, disadvantaged, at risk kids, poor scores, resentment at high expectations, oh, no bonus, right?
But wait, those high scoring, MIT, Harvard, Brown, Stanford, Berkeley bound kids would have been fine without me. So when did I deserve extra pay? That’s right, when I worked in the tougher environment.
But what does any of this have to do with measure C, nothing.
So vote yes on measure C.
JB: [i]Ok wdf1, how about this then… there is no comensurate value correlation for additional dollars spent on the current public education system.[/i]
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
You don’t feel you have time to volunteer or involve your time to check out things yourself, and I do; and I can’t convince you to go check out things for yourself. The availability of continued funding ultimately benefits everyone, but most especially benefits lower income students (at least 20% of Davis school kids are on free & reduced lunch) and other categories of potentially at risk students. The kids supported by the Bridge Foundation are helped the most. It means, for instance, that students can have, among other things:
1) reading and math aides available when they need individual attention
2) regular hands-on science lab experiences in elementary grades
3) library services available at all schools
4) beginning music instruction and free school instrument, if they need it
5) access to school athletic activities
6) greater access to nursing and crisis counseling services
Without funding for these services, your donations to Bridge Foundation will not provide as much value added benefit, because they will be playing catch up to make up for lost services and attention.
That’s why I’m voting Yes on C.
[i]”Why is this relevant to measure C?”[/i]
I don’t know if it is relevant to Measure C for most voters. I don’t presume to represent anyone else. But for me, the fact that we are talking about how much money flows into the district–most of which goes to teachers, as it should–should raise the question of how our district spends its money (including the really high pay for a few top admins).
I have never thought that good teachers are paid well enough. Knowing how much low-level city staffers make–employees whose jobs are far less important than teachers and whose training and education is far less–has opened my eyes to how poorly we pay our good teachers.
I think our good teachers need to be paid more. I also think all teachers need some aspect of their pay to be based on their performance. That is why this is relevant to me (but perhaps not relevant to others).
I don’t recall the exact numbers. Maybe the answer is five, maybe six. But I heard a Stanford U. education expert on a radio show (KGO, Ronn Ownes) maybe 18 months ago say that since the public school teachers won tenure rights for teachers some 40 years ago, only a few tenured teachers in all that time had been fired based on poor performance in the classroom. (A larger number had been fired for other reasons, such as getting convicted for various crimes, punching students, shooting up drugs in the classroom, etc.)
There are more than 300,000 teachers in the K-12 public schools this year. Public school teachers get tenure after just 2 years. So I would guess that more than 90% (say 270,000) have tenure. Yet virtually none of those tenured teachers is performing so poorly as to merit firing?
If the number who lost their jobs due to performance was just 1%–that assumes that 99% are good fits and are succeeding–we should be firing about 2,700 bad teachers every year. The number of bad teachers is likely far higher than that. But over 40 years we have essentially fired none with tenure for bad performance?
In rough economic times we fire lots of teachers. But we don’t shed the worst performers. We instead remove those who have been on the job the fewest years. That is nuts.
Is our refusal to fire bad teachers due to the fact that all tenured teachers are all doing such a good job? Or is it that the unions have made firing bad tenured teachers virtually impossible? And is it the case that the real reason the unions feer performance evaluations is because they will ultimately justify firing the worst teachers?
The LA Times looked into this and found we are not firing the dead wood because the unions (that is, the Democratic Party) have made it impossible and prohibitively expensive. Here is one quote from their investigation ([url]http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3[/url]): [quote] It’s remarkably difficult to fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has found. The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and re-hearings.
Not only is the process arduous, but some districts are particularly unsuccessful in navigating its complexities. The Los Angeles Unified School District sees the majority of its appealed dismissals overturned, and its administrators are far less likely even to try firing a tenured teacher than those in other districts. [/quote] There is no other profession–not even medical doctors–where everyone is judged good enough every year to retain his job. Keeping bad teachers on the job not only does grievous harm to students, but it harms the reputation of all teachers.
So getting back to Measure C: I have to wonder why the teachers think we should be paying them more money [i]if they refuse to tie their pay to performance evaluations[/i] and they have created a system which makes it virtually impossible to fire the worst of the worst tenured teachers?
Typo: “… the real reason the unions [s]feer[/s] [b]fear[/b] performance evaluations …”
Rich:
As I posted above, some districts have implemented performance pay systems. They have done so with the cooperation of unions. I have no evidence that unions here have[i] “refused to tie their pay to performance evaluations”[/i] and I don’t think you do, either. My guess is DJUSD has never proposed performance pay. It isn’t common. Perhaps you could ask a DJUSD board member rather than bluntly stating that [i]”they refuse to tie their pay to performance evaluations.”[/i] Or you could call the head of the local DTA. Or you could ask some local teachers.
Moreover, pay for performance and firing for cause/tenure are two entirely different subjects which you have completely conflated in your reply here. Which of those is leading you to oppose Measure C? You haven’t said you oppose Measure C. But I’ll just assume you do.
[i]”But we don’t shed the worst performers. We instead remove those who have been on the job the fewest years. That is nuts.”[/i]
I think a lot of people do not understand the compounding problem with a system that does not effectively reward performance and retains under-performers.
Depending on the industry, an employee turnover rate of 5%-12% is considered healthy. It is impossible to bat 1000 in hiring people that are a perfect job/career fit. Sometimes people are great actors convincing you in an interview that they are qualified and have the right soft skills… but then fail to demonstrate the expected behaviors and skills on the job. Ironically, it is these people that are the most difficult to develop because they have often convinced themselves that they are a great fit and are entitled to the job and the recognition. They dig in their heels. The union is their salvation.
I have never fired anyone with these tendencies that has not ended up in a better career circumstance even as they still harbor anger at me for firing them. That is the irony of some personalities unable to handle rejection and change. However, my retained employees sure appreciate that I keep their teams and coworkers weeded of under-performers.
If you cannot effectively weed-out these people not fit for the job, and replace them, they will start to degrade the overall work culture of the organization.
Employees constantly seek clarification for their performance expectations. They expect to be treated fairly. If a lower performing employee is rewarded the same, it will drag down the performance bar for the entire workforce. Over time it becomes the new normal that infects all employees. With teaching, it has infected the entire industry. The industry gets defensive because, frankly, the employees do not know any better.
Great employees are motivated to make a difference, but they need feedback recognizing their efforts or else their motivation will decline. They also need empowerment to unleash their enthusiasm and creativity. The system needs to reform to allow the high-performers to infect the industry and work culture. The education system needs a robust performance management system that links a percentage of pay to performance. A percentage of their pay should be at risk bonus and based on a standard assessment process that pulls in feedback from all critical stakeholders. Step-grade merit increases should be based on skills development with commensurate increases in responsibility (not just based on the attainment of credentials). For example, senior teachers with experience and demonstrated capabilities should become team leaders responsible for mentoring more junior teachers… in addition to performing their regular teaching duties. With this extra responsibility should come greater pay… six figure salaries should be supported.
A tree analogy is apt: too much deadwood not cleared will cause the health of the entire tree to decline. A well-designed performance management system provides a benefit to the organization like a skilled arborist does for the tree.
Improper pruning kills more trees than deadwood.
[i]We instead remove those who have been on the job the fewest years. That is nuts. [/i]
Note that the Davis teachers agreed to a system enhancing retirement to reduce this problem. Perhaps, Jeff, youi and Rich could both contact the head of the local DTA, or some older teachers, and discuss with them the possible implementation of performance pay in DJUSD.
[i]”Improper pruning kills more trees than deadwood.”[/i]
Sure, but we know how to “prune”. Best practices for this stuff have been in play for decades. It is not rocket science.
Performance pay was successfully introduced in Denver with the support of the teachers. In Cincinnati it was overwhelmingly rejected by the teachers. Developing performance pay systems in the public sector takes time and considerable cooperation, and all stakeholders have to be heard and participate. It can’t just be imposed from above. So while it may be useful, it isn’t going to be a reform that happens quickly.
Again, though, I don’t know if it has ever even been discussed at DJUSD. Since most consumers here appear to be happy with the school system, I don’t know if there is likely to be a groundswell of support for a major reform of this sort.
“If the number who lost their jobs due to performance was just 1%–that assumes that 99% are good fits and are succeeding–we should be firing about 2,700 bad teachers every year. The number of bad teachers is likely far higher than that. But over 40 years we have essentially fired none with tenure for bad performance?”
You are making these numbers up and have no basis for them.
Anyway it shows you don’t understand what is happening in schools. First tenure is awarded after two years but a large number of teachers leave in the first five years. I think its something like 25% but I forget the exact number. Of those that remain some are incompetent but I have seen principals get these people to resign before they are fired so its not as cut and dried as you assume. Also, don’t confuse unpopular with incompetent. Some fall down over the long haul of a career. I once saw a teacher sent to rehab for alcohol abuse dried out and returned to work. It just seems so hateful that you want to lash out at people who have a complex job for decades and expectations that fail any sense of humanity.
As for your tireless rants about the teachers union and the Democratic party being one and the same. Why do you think they are so successful at the ballot box in this state. Surely it isn’t the money. Ask Meg Whitman about that.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/mark-anderson/2012/01/davis-student-intel-science-finalist.html?ana=yfcpc
Davis high senior is Intel finalist!
Vote yes on measure C.
[i]”Which of those is leading you to oppose Measure C? You haven’t said you oppose Measure C. But I’ll just assume you do.”[/i]
I have not said I oppose Measure C.
[i]”As for your tireless rants about the teachers union and the Democratic party being one and the same. Why do you think they are so successful at the ballot box in this state. Surely it isn’t the money. Ask Meg Whitman about that.”[/i]
Same reason the Muslim Brotherhood is more successful politically after the Arab Uprising. Existing organization and structure and loads of free labor. GOP candidates have to create their organizations from scratch and account for all labor costs. Democrats have armies of union employees already tuned and ready to fight for their selfish interests. That is a very big difference.
For instance, at several Whitman rallies, bus fulls of nurses showed up to disrupt her.
[i]”Why do you think they are so successful at the ballot box in this state. Surely it isn’t the money.”[/i]
I don’t know how important the money is. I presume most Democrats win in California because the majority of voters are liberals* or are in some other respect turned off by the Republican message**. But, that said, the behavior of those Democrats who get into elected office suggests that the money they raise from the teachers unions and from other public employee groups affects them to a great degree.
If you look up the financial donors on Cal-Access, what you will find is that for incumbent Democrats (less so with newcomers) almost all of them will raise most of their money from various permutations of public employee unions and other unions which make all or almost all of their money by way of public works contracts (essentially making them public employees). By far the union which spends the most monies on elections in California is the California Teachers Association. Most years they spend more than any other group of any kind (though it is hard to tell with lawyers, because while they also mainly fund incumbent Democrats or known quantities like Jerry Brown, they don’t bundle their money like the unions do). The real exception to the unions being the big funders in California is the Indian tribes which own casinos. They too pour money into campaigns and into politicians. And not surprisingly they get the results they are looking for.
*The Prop 8 vote suggests that while most people in California favor the liberal cause that (up to now) does not necessarily include the gays. But I presume it will eventually. And I presume that outside of the most conservative religious folks gays will be as accepted as any minority in our state.
**My hope is that under the new primary voting system the far-right conservative Republicans will have less power over who the GOP puts on the ballot and as a result moderate Republicans who hopefully are not bought off by the public employees will win.
“GOP candidates have to create their organizations from scratch and account for all labor costs.”
This is an odd statement for the GOP stands for Grand Old Party.
What is a moderate Republican? In California the GOP is so extreme that not one Republican will vote for a tax increase even if it means that is the only thing they have any control over. Last session they wouldn’t put a measure before voters to raise taxes even though it meant huge cuts and having no other legislative accomplishments. So honestly what would be the agenda of a moderate Republican in California?
[i]”So honestly what would be the agenda of a moderate Republican in California?”[/i]
– Cut government spending
– Don’t raise taxes
– Support gay marriage
– Impregnate the housekeeper
I think there are a number of significant differences between the moderate and conservative Republicans. Most of them center on the “social” agenda. That said, my notions of what a moderate Republican thinks is no doubt a projection of my own ideas and may have no basis in fact.
I think that moderates, whether pro-choice or pro-life, are less likely to make that the centerpiece of their politics, be they Democrats or Republicans.
Since the early 1980s (notably some years after Roe vs Wade was decided) the right-wingers have made being anti-abortion their largest cause. That certainly is their privilege. But it is a minority view in California and has been for 50 years. It marginalizes the Republican Party at large. And because of the way primaries have worked in our state, it has been hard (especially for non-celebrities) to win a primary and to be pro-choice.
Moderates also are not ideological about increasing taxes when it is necessary. That is not to say they will raise taxes like Democrats will. They are likely to weigh the pros and cons on a case by case basis. Yet the most conservative Republicans who dominate the GOP are hardliners on this: they repeat the “no new taxes” mantra as regularly as Buddhists chant Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō, Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō, Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.
I think, like all Republicans, moderates favor less regulation of business, more private enterprise, and a better legal, tax and regulatory framework for private businesses to thrive.
On immigration, where some hard-right Republicans get caught up in the “they are breaking the law, they need to be caught and sent to jail or sent home” idea, moderates are more pragmatic. They are more likely to want to find a solution that marries employers with those seeking work. This is somewhat impossible to do in California because the Feds control who gets a work visa and who does not. But it seems to me that those pro-business Republicans ought to favor programs where farmers or contractors or restaurateurs who need Mexican or Central American laborers to plant and harvest crops or to hot mop roofs or to wash dishes and clean lavatories should be able to pay some fee to the Feds which buys them the right to hire however many immigrant laborers they need.
I also think that if the Republican Party had a more pro-immigrant platform–like the one I lay out above tying employers to their needed employees–the GOP in California would do better among Latino voters. The fact that many Latinos think of Republicans as racists or anti-immigrant does not help them win the Latino vote.
Can you be pro-immigrant while being anti-illegal immigrant?
Frankly, I think the GOP has lost the Latino vote because the Latino population has expanded to become less respectful of US sovereignty and US laws… and GOP politicians are unwilling to sell their principles for a vote like their opposition routinely does. The GOP’s disappointment is NOT that we are not winning the hearts and minds of these Latinos (note that there is still a solid US population of conservative second and third generation Latinos in this country also disgusted with all the illegal immigration and against amnesty), but that we were soft on immigration before and allowed the Democrats to expand their voter base at the expense of US safety and fiscal impacts. That is a lesson learned and the first goal is to stop the flow with a completed border fence (high tech, military, etc.), and second – require an employment identification card and eliminate the ability to work and all taxpayer-paid services to illegal immigrants not having a valid card.
ALL conservatives that I know support legal immigration and a guest worker program that requires an identification card.
Talking about any GOP candidate supporting any type of amnesty is a non-starter because: 1) anything other than full amnesty is not going to help the GOP and GOP voters would crucify any candidate that supports it; 2) these Latinos are still going to stick with the Dems because of all the free stuff they will get.
Rich: “Most years they spend more than any other group of any kind…”
Well…
“Top 10 Contributors to those serving in the 2009-2010 session of the California State Legislature
Rank Contributor Contributions, 1/1/2003-12/31/2008
1 California Medical Association $1,637,923.85
2 California Teachers Association $1,509,754.87
3 AT&T $1,421,637.71
4 California State Council of Service Employees $1,327,000.00
5 California Dental Association $1,224,773.73
6 California Professional Fire Fighters $822,757.16
7 California State Council of Laborers $819,500.00
8 California Building Industry Association $804,773.33
9 California Association of Realtors $748,400.00
10 Farmers Insurance Group $733,096.68″
[url]http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/19794[/url]
So, summarizing:
Business groups: 6,570,605
Labor groups: 4,479,012
The current definition of a moderate Republican in California is probably Abel Maldonado, who, incidentally, received lots of money from the CTA. He was the only Republican who did. In the past, Pete Wilson and Ken Maddy were notable moderates, except that Wilson took a hardline position on immigration. Jeff’s comments neatly illustrate just how far to the right California’s Republican party has become. And even Wilson initially had to overcome strong resistance in the California Republican party to his gubernatorial candidacy because of his pro-choice position (which, to his credit, he never changed — unlike some current GOP candidates). When Wilson first ran for governor, he came in fourth in a 4-man field.
If you want to get school reform, you’re going to have to work with the teachers unions. If you want to get anything done on the state budget, compromise is going to be necessary. If you want to make forward progress on immigration issues, the competing interests of the state’s agricultural interests, urban leaders, and law enforcement groups are going to have to be involved. In the past, moderate Republicans, recognizing their minority status in the state, accepted reality and worked with the other party. That has not been the case for many years.
“2) these Latinos are still going to stick with the Dems because of all the free stuff they will get.”
No they will stick with the Dems because angry white Republican desgraciados demonize them or people they know or who are relatives. Hypocritically we see time and again with so called moderate Republicans like Romney or Whitman they will demonize Latinos when they need to and hire or fire them when they need to as well. As long as people like Poizner are allowed to poison the well R’s in this state will suffer the lack of goodwill from Latino communities. Remember it was Reagan who signed the 1986 immigrant reform legislation that was supposed to deliver Latino votes to the R’s for a generation. What happened? Pete Wilson, a Republican moderate attacked them for political gain. And don’t forget Tom Tancredo delivering Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada to Obama. You can deny that the aspirations of Latinos are legitimate and be dismissive claiming its about Democratic handouts but you are never going to win elections until California Republicans embrace the dreams, aspirations and hard work of the Latino community. So go ahead JB marginalize yourself politically with all your racist rants and watch the R’s wander in irrelevance in California politics forever, the only power they have is to block tax increases.
As for the Republican stand on taxes as long as the R’s have a no compromise attitude towards taxes they can’t be called moderate. It is an extreme position and that precludes the art of politics, that is, the search for the possible where everybody gets something but nobody gets everything they want.
[i]”angry white Republican desgraciados demonize them”[/i]
Toad: This is you demonizing white Republicans. Do you have any evidence of Republicans demonizing Latinos (I assume that is what you mean by “them”)?
The GOP stand on zero taxes is simple to save your ass, since raising taxes will result in a hit to the state economy and fewer jobs… and hence lower tax revenue. Think of us as the anti-state bankruptcy crusades!
It is an extreme position because of the thing your favored ideology likes to label as “progress” (i.e. spending). This position is justified and righteous because we have become one of the highest-taxed states with a consistent and historical propensity to always spend more than we take in.
[i]”So go ahead JB marginalize yourself politically with all your [edit] rants and watch the R’s wander in irrelevance in California politics forever, the only power they have is to block tax increases.”[/i]
“Marginalize yourself politically”? I don’t subscribe to the being “me being politically correct” credo at the expense of my community and country.
California Atlas started shrugging long ago.
Conservatives don’t want Greece, and they are rejecting California for similar reasons. If I were you, I would start worrying about that.
[i]”Jeff’s comments neatly illustrate just how far to the right California’s Republican party has become.”[/i]
Don, actually your comment above proves how far left the state has come to consider my statement as being so far right. To test that point, just ask yourslef how might a good Kennedy Democrat feel and opine about the topic of illegal immigration?
[i]”In the past, moderate Republicans, recognizing their minority status in the state, accepted reality and worked with the other party.”[/i]
Yup, and look where that got us all.
No, this didn’t come from The Onion.
Republicans vow to protect high school dropouts from Barack Obama ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-vow-protect-high-school-dropouts-barack-obama-184402291.html[/url])
[i]To test that point, just ask yourslef how might a good Kennedy Democrat feel and opine about the topic of illegal immigration?[/i]
You mean like the Kennedy who co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007? I don’t get your point.
A John Kennedy Democrat, not a Ted Kennedy Democrat.
You know the guy that penned “A Nation of Immigrants” and was instrumental in changing our immigration laws so preference was not given to a specific country, race or culture over others.
Kennedy called for “the institution of an immigration policy that judges all [b]applicants[/b] on an equal footing.”
My point was that Democrats during Kennedy’s time would be considered conservatives today.
John F. Kennedy ran against Hubert Humphrey for the Democratic Party nomination in 1960. Humphrey was to his left, but Sargent Shriver was one of Kennedy’s top advisers. He was instrumental in getting Kennedy to hew to the left and distance himself from the Southern conservatives who had formed the core of the Democratic party coalition at that time (the old Southern conservative/Northern liberal coalition that FDR and Truman had maintained).
Kennedy built the Peace Corps, appointing Shriver as its director. He started the war on poverty that Johnson continued. He began the civil rights legislation that Johnson pushed through (thereby ceding Southern conservatives to the Republican party forever). Personally he was apparently more practical than ideological. Conservatives who controlled Congress blocked most of his domestic initiatives.
The notion that John Kennedy was conservative is a popular and strange fiction of contemporary conservatives, based, it seems, on the tax cut he supported and his appointment of pro-business Treasury officials. I suppose his hawkish foreign policy, by the standards of the times, could make him seem conservative. But John Kennedy would be very comfortable in today’s Democratic Party.
I doubt he would revile teachers unions.
There were plenty of Democrats far more conservative than Kennedy.
Note that in Obama’s last State of the Union speech, he used the word “fair” eight times. Contrast that to all three JFK State of the Union speeches where he used the word “fair” only once… and that was addressing his intent to push for lower taxes.
No folks, this is not our parents’ Democrat party… by a long shot.
[i]”Once upon a time, there was also such a thing as a liberal Republican.”[/i]
Classic Liberalsim, is of course, the foundation of what conservatism is today.
Although I have never heard the term “liberal Republican”. Is this the same as a Reagan Democrat?
Personally I like to break ideological leanings into three categories: fiscal/economic, foreign policy/defense, social. I am more hard right on the first two, and moderate on most social issues. I think also we tend to order these three things in terms of our perspectives of importance. For example, I put fiscal/economic strength at the top because I think it solves many problems in the other two categories. I think some liberals put social issues at the top because they think these are more pressing and urgent.
The ordering and emphasis is interesting for me because it generates strong debate even when there is strong agreement on the underlying needs and principles.
[url]http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html[/url]
You honestly believe that today’s Democratic Party is to the left of Franklin D. Roosevelt? Of Adlai Stevenson? Of Lyndon B. Johnson? Of Hubert H. Humphrey? Of George McGovern?
Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal Republican. Thomas Dewey, Mark Hatfield, Charles Percy, George Romney. They were sometimes called Rockefeller Republicans.
“Personally I like to break ideological leanings into three categories: fiscal/economic, foreign policy/defense, social. I am more hard right on the first two, and moderate on most social issues. I think also we tend to order these three things in terms of our perspectives of importance. For example, I put fiscal/economic strength at the top because I think it solves many problems in the other two categories. I think some liberals put social issues at the top because they think these are more pressing and urgent.
The ordering and emphasis is interesting for me because it generates strong debate even when there is strong agreement on the underlying needs and principles.”
Interesting. Just when I think it cannot be, you make a statement with which I whole heartedly agree. At least for this liberal, the social issues are definitely the top priority partially because of their immediacy. Partially because I truly believe that as individuals we create and shape the world by our daily decisions. The child that we feed today has a better chance of being a constructive member of our community than if we malnourish her because we believe her parents are “lazy” and unworthy of support ( which may or may not be objectively true but which for me is irrelevant).
[i]”You honestly believe that today’s Democratic Party is to the left of Franklin D. Roosevelt? Of Adlai Stevenson? Of Lyndon B. Johnson? Of Hubert H. Humphrey? Of George McGovern?”[/i]
From Wikipedia:
[quote]An April 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted during the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 (which many believe resulted due to lack of regulation in the financial markets) suggested that there had been a growth of support for socialism in the United States. The poll results stated that 53% of American adults thought capitalism was better than socialism, and that “Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided”.[95]Bernie Sanders, current U.S. Senator from Vermont, has described himself as a democratic socialist. Sanders served as the at-large representative for the state of Vermont before being elected to the senate in 2006.[/quote]
Democrats – with help from their friends in media, education and lucky political timing – established the narrative to blame free market capitalism and business for an economic downturn that was expected, cyclical and made more painful by previous government meddling in the free market..
I think the Democrat’s political strategy to foment class warfare and demonize business is substantially more indicative of a socialist mindset than previous. The entitlement state has expanded beyond what any previous president would have tolerated and now pursues a goal of permanency rather than just helping a brother until he gets back on his feet.
Could it be a reaction to too much wealth concentration at the top?
Give the children upward mobility. Support measure C.
You know that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, right?
Your citation didn’t answer my question. Bernie Sanders is not only not representative of the Democratic Party, he is not even a member. He is a socialist. He is one of the Independent members who caucuses with the Democrats, like Lieberman. So you not only didn’t answer my question, you didn’t prove the point you were trying to make.
Democrats are not socialists.
Democrats are not socialists.
Democrats are not socialists.
Got it?
[i]The entitlement state has expanded beyond what any previous president would have tolerated
[/i]
To the contrary, our current social safety net is very much as envisioned by JFK, Johnson, and succeeding presidents (including Nixon).
[i]”Could it be a reaction to too much wealth concentration at the top?”[/i]
Wealth is earned. It does not exist unless it is earned. If you desire wealth, go do the things that give you a chance to aquire it. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from it in this country… except increased regualtion and taxation.
Your wealthier neighbor does not negatively impact your prosperity, but he can negatively influence your envy. American has been a different and more successful country presisely because we have not accepted classism arguments. Our system of government, and our culture, developed around the principles of hard work, self determination, free markets, and the rights of every single person to have access to the same opportunities to grow their own prosperity.
What has changed is us having a President and leaders of Congress, for the first time in recent history, demonstrating their disregard for these principles and also demonstrating their willingness to destroy them for their own political benefit.
[i]Wealth is earned.[/i]
Or inherited, stolen, or borrowed.
Or gained from speculation.
Data:
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TJgxEwPv7RI/AAAAAAAAObs/AU8XbvZCSdo/s1600/poverty.jpg[/img]
[i]”Or inherited, stolen, or borrowed”[/i]
If inherited it was previously earned and taxes were paid on it.
If stolen, that is a separate issue and why we have laws and judicial and armies of attorneys in this country.
If borrowed it is not wealth, it is debt. Debt can be used to grow wealth.
wdf1: So your point that even with the explosion in population growth the US poverty rate in 2010 is the same as it was in 1966. In 1960 when the top income tax rate was 90%, our poverty rate was almost double what it is today. Unless I am reading your graph incorrectly, it does not support your contention that greater poverty has been causes by the increases in wealth.
“Or gained from speculation.”
On this point I probably am closer to the view of my liberal friends. Our economy has developed into more of a gambler’s table than one where people produce real products and services. The equity markets used to be a place where stockholders invested in companies for the long haul.
Again though, if we look back and what caused the changes… there are government fingerprints on it. Computerized trading began with the application of quantitative math theory in computer stock tading programs developed by public-sector math scientists. The practice of betting on stock-equity growth despite overstated price/earnings happened duing the Clinton era during the tech-stock boom. Some of these practice can be traced to economic and monetary police during that time.
I’m not a fan of how the investment game has evolved to attract smart so many smart people (while also attracting unethical people) to gamble rather than starting and growing a business and competing within product markets.
Going back to an earlier theme:
JB: [i]Designing a useful performance management system simply requires one to understand the “what gets measured gets done” principle.[/i]
I know this was mostly Rifkin’s argument that you were commenting on, about wanting a particular evaluation system, but you have argued in that direction at times.
Yet at the same time you have said that Davis schools are good because of good genetics, doting parents, etc., suggesting that it didn’t matter what the teachers did.
Can you explain that apparent contradiction? In other words, why worry about evaluating teachers if they don’t make any difference, according to your argument?
[i]”Can you explain that apparent contradiction? In other words, why worry about evaluating teachers if they don’t make any difference, according to your argument?”[/i]
I don’t think that I ever wrote that they don’t make any difference.
It is easier to teach gifted kids with educated and resourceful parents velcroed to them. Ask any teacher about this.
I think the difference between outcomes generated by a good teacher and a bad teacher with a classroom full of these gifted students will tend to be very small. However, for kids not fitting this template, the delta will tend to be much larger. Davis has a higher population of gifted kids.
You are against NCLB and student testing. Fine then, replace it with another system of measures that hit the target for the outcomes we want to achieve.
For example, my employees must provide top-level customer service to compete in our industry. We survey our clients after each critical transaction and use the aggregate results in our performance management system. It is not easy to deal with difficult customers just like it is not easy to deal with difficult students. However, that is the requirement of the job and my employees know we are measuring our level of success and basing some percent of compensation on it.
Here is a list of our generic measures targeting individual employee performance.
[quote]Customer Focus – We will be customer-focused at all times: providing consistently friendly, competent and responsive service to our borrowers, lenders, partners and co-workers.
Team Orientation –We will work collaboratively and be helpful to each other.
Entrepreneurship – We will demonstrate initiative, critical thinking skills and the risk-taking mentality necessary to generate the greatest contribution to the company and society.
Respectfulness – We will treat others with dignity, respect, honesty and sensitivity.
Fulfillment – We will constantly strive to reach our full potential and find fulfillment in work.
Service Excellence – We will continuously look for ways to improve efficiency, accelerate turnaround and minimize costs.
Long-Term Financial Success – We will continually strive for financial growth and success while ensuring a strong and viable portfolio.
Integrity – We will conduct all affairs lawfully and with honesty while simultaneously balancing the needs and interests of coworkers, partners and customers.
Ethics – We will uphold and promote a high moral code for our business and industry.
Community – We give back to the communities in which we lend.
[/quote]
In addition to this employees have key job accountabilities and development goals and also have part of their performance bonus tied to company goals.
We make assessment questions that address these and measure the results.
For example:
– Was the service provider friendly and responsive?
– Was the service provider competetent and helpful?
– Did your coworker treat you and other coworkers with dignity, respect, honesty and sensitivity?
We measure behaviors, actions AND outcomes… not just outcomes.
All of these measures are aggregated and reported to motivate employees toward what we consider to be consistent peak performance.
Simply start by asking the question “what makes a great teacher?” and then design an assessment/measurement program targeting that model/design. Use the measurment data for employee development and bonus compensation… and for weeding out those that cannot meet performance expectations.
It is not rocket science. Why does the education establishment reject it?
Sometimes teachers accept performance-based pay, sometimes they don’t. Compare the two school districts in Colorado with what happened in Cincinnati. I have already posted the links in this thread. Clearly it has to be a collaborative process, designed by all the affected groups (stakeholders). If it is imposed, top-down, and then subjected to a union vote, it will be rejected. If it is developed with input from all stakeholders, it can succeed.
The sentence that you begin with “Simply start by…” is not, in fact, simple. But it can be done. I seriously doubt, though, that performance pay is a panacea, any more than vouchers are. And, again, since the overwhelming majority of Davis residents appear to be satisfied with their school system, it might be hard to make the case for implementing a new evaluation system.
JB: [i]Simply start by asking the question “what makes a great teacher?” and then design an assessment/measurement program targeting that model/design. Use the measurment data for employee development and bonus compensation… and for weeding out those that cannot meet performance expectations.
It is not rocket science. Why does the education establishment reject it?[/i]
Just to be clear, all teachers in Davis, and in fact all employees in the school district get evaluated. It may not be in the way you want (and I understand that it doesn’t include standardized test scores), but there is a system in place. And employees can use those evaluations if they want to seek a different position somewhere.
JB: [i]You are against NCLB and student testing. Fine then, replace it with another system of measures that hit the target for the outcomes we want to achieve.[/i]
Re: NCLB, I am specifically against the AYP system of demanding 14 point gains annually so that 100% of students are performing at the proficient or above benchmark by 2014. I applaud the ambition, but it isn’t working as intended, it is distracting from the larger mission of the schools, it doesn’t take into account all of the factors that go into making a good schools, it is being used to publicly label good teachers and schools as failures in a job performance way rather than as one diagnostic measure of student performance, and most importantly, it isn’t resulting in an improved education for students who come from lower income families.
[i]”Sometimes teachers accept performance-based pay, sometimes they don’t.”[/i]
Yes, and I’m sure you understand the difference if you take the statement above and replace the word “teacher” with “employee” and apply this to a private-sector business. It is an absurd notion that employees could reject a system of assessment and performance-based pay. This is why I am so anti-union. You will never be nimble enough as an organization if every damn management decision has be approved by the employees and the union.
[i]”Just to be clear, all teachers in Davis, and in fact all employees in the school district get evaluated. It may not be in the way you want (and I understand that it doesn’t include standardized test scores), but there is a system in place.”[/i]
Because of “what gets measured gets done”, if your evaluation system measures the wrong things it does more harm than good. Even though it is not rocket science, it does come with risks if not designed and executed correctly.
Isn’t it ironic that teachers spend their time evaluating, development and grading students, yet they resist and reject the same being done to them?
JB: [i]You will never be nimble enough as an organization if every damn management decision has be approved by the employees and the union.[/i]
This is where your non-teaching experience is at least partially biasing your perspective on the reality of teaching. In our free-market capitalist society, I think we are biased to wanting instant gratification in our results. I don’t think it works that way when you seek to measure student success. Education is a more gradual process, and you may not get all the success measures you seek until 20+ years later. For instance, longitudinal measures of students who had early childhood education show that they are likelier to go to college, even correcting for income. And maybe you can’t measure the benefits of an intervention within 2-3 years. You can’t necessarily be as nimble as you would like in making changes when you have to wait that long for all the feedback.
A child in his/her grade school career (13 years) will certainly live through one economic downturn, and maybe two. He/she will also live through one and maybe two changes in academic fads. Here’s another quote from Ravitch’s book (paperback edition, p. 285) that address this issue:
[quote] When I was a graduate student in the early 1970’s, I discovered a surprising secret about American education: In almost every decade of the twentieth century, there was a crisis. In the early decades, critics said the schools were too academic and were failing to prepare students for an industrial economy. Their loud complaints produced the first significant federal education legislation, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 and the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, to promote vocational education. In the 1930s, critics complained that the schools were failing to meet the needs of youth or of the economy; federal programs were created (the Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration) to fill the gap. In the 1940s, critics complained that the schools were underfunded, overcrowded, and unprepared for the postwar economy and the atomic age. In the early 19050s, critics assailed the schools for their lack of academic rigor. Then, when the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, public figures and the media blamed the schools for losing the space race and jeopardizing the nation’s security. In response, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958. In the 1960’s, the nation “discovered” poverty, and the schools were again subject to searing criticism because they reflected the prejudices of the larger society. Congress reacted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning racial discrimination in the schools and other public institutions. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the schools were lambasted by critics who discerned, as author Charles Silberman put it, a “risks in the classroom” due to “mindlessness” and the routinization of education. In response came a flurry of pedagogical experiments, such as open classrooms and student freedom to select their own curriculum. In 1983, a federal commission declared that the United States was “a nation at risk” because of the failings of our schools. Since the late 1990s, the crisis in education has centered on the achievement gap between children of different races. The gap is not new: It is the result of a long history of racial oppression and prejudice. Nonetheless, critics blame the schools and teachers for the existence of the gap and for the failure to close it.
This is what I have learned after many decades of studying American education: Education is a reflection of society. Education is integrally related to the society in which it is embedded. Education is intended to improve society by improving the knowledge and skills of the people, but education works incrementally over years, not overnight.
[/quote]
[i]”In our free-market capitalist society, I think we are biased to wanting instant gratification in our results. I don’t think it works that way when you seek to measure student success. Education is a more gradual process, and you may not get all the success measures you seek until 20+ years later.”[/i]
wdf1: With all due respect, this response embodies the exact type of thinking that needs to change. Think about IBM Corporation in the 1980s’ having to reinvent itself from a mainframe computer company to one able to succeed in rapidly evolving technology field. Here was a behemoth organization needing to change, or otherwise be at risk for becoming obsolete. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) was another large technology company at the time that failed in this and became obsolete.
Certainly educating a child is an incremental process; but this “gradual pace” concept does not have to map to the business of education. We need to reinvent the business of education just like IBM had to reinvent its business. We need a sense of urgency. Unfortunately this irritates the establishment and the unions terrified of impacts to their adult jobs program. They point to all the other examples of failed reform as a defensive tactic to prevent having to accept change.
If these people were employees of IBM during the 1980s, IBM would have long ago been obsolete and out of business.
JB: With respect to your comparison to IBM, computer industry is one that is/has changed significantly over time with the development of new technology. I’m not sure that the comparison is apt. 40-50 years ago the IBM 360 was the top of the line computer. Nowadays we marvel at iPads. Four-five years from now it might be something very different.
What is there about the nature of teaching and education that has changed fundamentally in the past 40-50 years that informs you that teachers today aren’t keeping up?
I know that you may be thinking about the internet and computers and cool technology, but to my way of thinking, those are tools and not a revolutionary approach to teaching and education. Those would be tools that you would use to implement a certain philosophical framework or approach, but not a substitute for the framework itself. I would argue that you could likely find a teacher who does an excellent job, but doesn’t use any recent technology in a class setting.
wdf1: My point was not to compare technology advances from mainframes to handhelds… or even to compare education to technology. My point was to illustrate how large organizations must reinvent themselves to survive.
I think you and I differ in our opinion of need for education reform. You seem to think it is more or less ok the way it is with the exception of more money spent on the arts. I see it as being a fundemental mess with some communities like Davis lucky enough to have the resources to work around it.