Plenty of crimes (including the occasional murder) don't automatically receive a maximum sentence. I don't think it's difficult to augment the sentence of someone convicted of assault, for example.
Academic freedom? Really? In K-12? If we were talking about serious research institutions, sure, but good God, these are high school and elementary kids we're talking about. The teachers' first responsibility is to teach, not to explore their views on a particular subject.
1.) If you get rid of tenure while increasing pay, you replace one incentive system with a better, more flexible approach. Getting rid of tenure isn't synonymous with turning public schools into a career wasteland. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are plenty of young, enthusiastic teachers who are genuinely excited at the prospect of reforming the DC system.
2.) "Due process" isn't a precondition for firing people in any other field. Credible accusations from multiple different sources would be enough to get anyone else fired - why shouldn't the same standards apply to teachers?
I suspect that schools in 1968 simply weren't dealing with the problems we face today, so I don't think emulating their approach to education (whatever that may have been) will solve anything.
ED -
1.) This strikes me as a debate over semantics. I think we should "pay" teachers based on performance. I don't see how you can commission someone to perform a task without quantifying that task's value.
2.) Obviously, I'm in favor of local control. Job placement/school placement might work, though a lot of that stuff is subject to external factors that have nothing to do with schooling (who you know, whether you're a legacy etc.) Relying purely on graduation rates could also be problematic - after all, a school with really low standards might graduate a lot of kids because its curriculum is so easy.
As I said above, I'm sympathetic to your third objection, though the HuffPo article I link to provides some pretty compelling evidence that good teachers can overcome structural barriers. As for points 1&2:
1.) I'd venture that compensating teachers - whether it be through tenure or performance-based bay - "quantifies" education. We've already crossed that bridge.
2.) Standardized tests suck, but I can't think of any other metric to determine student achievement.
At the American Scene, the discussion revolved around the LA Times article, not DC school reform.
That said, there are a few reasonable objections to Rhee's program. The most persuasive, to my mind, is that holding teachers accountable for improving student performance in such a crummy environment is unfair and counterproductive. I still think the performance-based pay program is worth trying, but I understand where its opponents are coming from.
Thanks for the heads-up. That's an interesting point, though I think Gladwell's larger argument is purely descriptive: underdog tactics are effective but rarely used because they're so much more difficult to implement.
Excellent post, and I'd add one further thing: By investing so much in the American mythos, we risk whitewashing past crimes. I suspect it's difficult to come to terms with American mistakes if you are committed to proving our moral infallibility over and over again.
I don't see malice or avarice behind Stewart's decision to walk back his remarks; I think his (bad) explanation betrays how little we examine our political heroes.
On “He Doesn’t Look a Thing Like Jesus”
Ooh - nicely done!
On “Master of Divinity”
Nicely done, Dierkes! May your priesting be serene and fulfilling. Or something.
On “Silly Arguments Against Hate Crimes Legislation”
Jaybird -
Plenty of crimes (including the occasional murder) don't automatically receive a maximum sentence. I don't think it's difficult to augment the sentence of someone convicted of assault, for example.
"
So prosecute hate crimes when you can prove it. Seems easy enough to me.
On “Friday Night Jukebox”
Nicely done.
On “The Salad Bowl”
Chris -
Not a bad idea. Any suggestions?
On “We used to be friends”
Clint -
To be fair, your tastes in music really, really suck.
On “New Belgium”
Fat tire is delicious. Too bad about the festival.
On “I dare you to make less sense”
Kevin Carson -
That post is a real gem.
Mike at the Big Stick -
I think this entry addresses a lot of your points about the moral distinction between warfare and torture:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/04/why-they-fight/
On “Liar, Liar: Jim Carrey and the Misinformation About Vaccines and Autism”
piece* - whoops
"
I just wanted to chime in echo everyone's compliments - this really was a thorough, well thought-out peace.
On “One More Time Around the Track”
Academic freedom? Really? In K-12? If we were talking about serious research institutions, sure, but good God, these are high school and elementary kids we're talking about. The teachers' first responsibility is to teach, not to explore their views on a particular subject.
"
A couple of points:
1.) If you get rid of tenure while increasing pay, you replace one incentive system with a better, more flexible approach. Getting rid of tenure isn't synonymous with turning public schools into a career wasteland. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are plenty of young, enthusiastic teachers who are genuinely excited at the prospect of reforming the DC system.
2.) "Due process" isn't a precondition for firing people in any other field. Credible accusations from multiple different sources would be enough to get anyone else fired - why shouldn't the same standards apply to teachers?
On “We used to be friends”
Guilty as charged. The only half-decent song the Dandy Warhols ever recorded.
On ““A Tale of Two Exurbs””
Thanks for the tip, Mike.
On “Teaching Moments”
Jaybird -
I suspect that schools in 1968 simply weren't dealing with the problems we face today, so I don't think emulating their approach to education (whatever that may have been) will solve anything.
ED -
1.) This strikes me as a debate over semantics. I think we should "pay" teachers based on performance. I don't see how you can commission someone to perform a task without quantifying that task's value.
2.) Obviously, I'm in favor of local control. Job placement/school placement might work, though a lot of that stuff is subject to external factors that have nothing to do with schooling (who you know, whether you're a legacy etc.) Relying purely on graduation rates could also be problematic - after all, a school with really low standards might graduate a lot of kids because its curriculum is so easy.
"
E.D. -
As I said above, I'm sympathetic to your third objection, though the HuffPo article I link to provides some pretty compelling evidence that good teachers can overcome structural barriers. As for points 1&2:
1.) I'd venture that compensating teachers - whether it be through tenure or performance-based bay - "quantifies" education. We've already crossed that bridge.
2.) Standardized tests suck, but I can't think of any other metric to determine student achievement.
"
paul h. -
At the American Scene, the discussion revolved around the LA Times article, not DC school reform.
That said, there are a few reasonable objections to Rhee's program. The most persuasive, to my mind, is that holding teachers accountable for improving student performance in such a crummy environment is unfair and counterproductive. I still think the performance-based pay program is worth trying, but I understand where its opponents are coming from.
On “heat”
Amen, brother.
On “The Underdog”
Mike -
Thanks for the heads-up. That's an interesting point, though I think Gladwell's larger argument is purely descriptive: underdog tactics are effective but rarely used because they're so much more difficult to implement.
On “Let’s not call it exceptionalism.”
Excellent post, and I'd add one further thing: By investing so much in the American mythos, we risk whitewashing past crimes. I suspect it's difficult to come to terms with American mistakes if you are committed to proving our moral infallibility over and over again.
On “An Exceptionally Moral United States”
Great post, Mark.
On “Look Back in Anger”
Patrick -
I don't see malice or avarice behind Stewart's decision to walk back his remarks; I think his (bad) explanation betrays how little we examine our political heroes.
On “Hate Crimes (III)”
Even a manly, brave, muscular sort like Andrew Breitbart can only be expected to endure so much verbal torture. They all break eventually . . .
"
Comment of the month!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.