The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by bareboards2.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

1. I have no problem with teachers being held more accountable in a fair manner, and that they could be let go for poor performance more easily than they are now. The fundamental problem with getting rid of subpar teachers is we don't have enough teachers as is. You can be selective when there actually is a surplus of people wanting to teach. You can't pay teachers a crappy salary, then fire them more readily for poor performance when you have class sizes of 30-40 students. That's my entire point. Right now, the problem is not that you can't get rid of bad teachers. The problem is you can't attract enough good ones, and when you do get them, they leave because the job sucks, and they're not paid enough.

2. We are born with predispositions for certain kinds of intelligence. The ability to teach well is an exceptional skillset. You have to have the right blend of intelligence to learn the subject matter you want to teach, plus the emotional and social intelligence to relate that information to other people, most of whom do not think like you do. The natural ability alone isn't enough, you are correct. But there are people who just will never be good at teaching no matter how hard they work at it. If you haven't the social and emotional intelligence to relate well to others, you won't be a good teacher.

3. The devil is in the details. If a teacher has a class of 37 8th grade students, most with special needs with learning disabilities, and the teacher gets no special education help, should the teacher's performance evaluation be negative if the kids' performances are subpar? (I faced that my last year of teaching, went to guidance dept, raised a stink about it, and their response was that's the best they could do. Thankfully, I left the first week of the school year when I got my first permanent IT job, but I raised a stink anyway because that wasn't fair to the person who would replace me. Our pay wasn't influenced by student performance, thankfully, because that's fundamentally unfair. What about the fact that the #1 factor in a student's achievement is the socio-economic class of the parent(s)? Does that mean teachers in inner-city schools should get more negative performance evaluations than teachers in suburbia? It's easier said than done. And this is the problem with comparing how the business sector works with public education. In the business sector, if these factors caused the business to not perform well, the business would get shut down, and there would be far less negative societal problems because of it. Sure, a few people would lose their jobs, but it's not as likely to cause very long lasting repercussions. If public schools' mission is to provide everyone with a basic education, you can't shut the inner-city school down. Even if you don't shut them down, if teachers realize they'll get paid less because their performance hinges on factors that are not under their control, such as the socio-economic class of the student, they'll flee inner-city schools to teach in suburbia, which means the inner-city schools who desperately need the best teachers will get worse ones.

It's really simple to say there should be merit based pay for teachers. On principle, I agree. But I haven't yet seen a merit based pay system for teachers that addresses all of these kinds of problems, which are significant fundamental problems you can't simply ignore just because such a system works in the private sector.

5.

a) There is incentive to take the risk if it also meant if teachers perform better, overall pay would on average could go up for teachers. But that's not on the table, let's be honest. The real reason teachers aren't getting paid more on average is there's not enough public support for the higher taxes that would have to be paid. And once again, it's a crappy job as is, so why would someone be in favor of making a crappy job even less secure? You don't have enough teachers, period, and even if you did, you're not attracting enough talented individuals to become and remain teachers. How does it make sense to make the job less secure then until you correct that problem.

b) I disagree with you about teacher unions. First off, I lump in any organization that collectively advocates for employees as a "union" when I hear people say "teacher's unions". Here in Virginia, there is the Virginia Education Association, which is an affiliate of the National Education Association. However, it is not a union; it can't initiate strikes. It's a professional association, just like the NEA at the national level. Some states do in fact have teacher unions, some don't. Would you call the following technically unions:

American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Dental Association

So to lump teachers all together and say they are all unionized is not true.

The VEA and the NEA would not be worried in the slightest about a reduction of members because they still advocate for things other than pay, and teachers are fools if they don't join because, as an example, the VEA/NEA is the absolute cheapest way to acquire liability insurance (if you get sued for anything you do at your job, and there's a lot you can get sued for that makes no sense).

I'm not particularly gung ho about unions in general, nor for teacher unions and associations, but their existence is needed, and they're not nearly as rigid as you're suggesting.

The arts thing, once again, the arts can be a driver to motivation to higher achievement in other things. I won't say they are per se correct in what they advocate, but that would be towards the bottom of the list of things that should elicit that kind of reaction by society in general. There is far more pressing issues in education where you have people who fundamentally don't understand the issue and advocate horrifying policies.

Btw, thank you for actually being open to a discussion about this. I hope you're at least learning something out of it, and are open to changing your mind at least some.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'diane ravitch, education, award, public, private, testing' to 'diane ravitch, nea, education, award, public, private, testing' - edited by kronosposeidon

Stellar

There's very simple problems I have with your/Ron Paul's approach to everything.


1• Not everyone is a health insurance expert. Leaving it up to families or undereducated individuals to figure out the infinitely complex system that is health insurance, find the best deal possible, etc. Is completely irrational. Besides, your idea of giving a family $10k for insurance when the average is $12k, is obviously off the mark. But, you probably don't give a shit.

Do you know how many people in this country would have no idea how to even begin any of this? If you think it would work, you're out of your mind.


2• Not everyone is a savings&investment expert. Sure, Ron Paul is a monetary guru, but the vast majority of the people in this country can hardly get above simple multiplication tables. Your/Ron Paul's answer to this is generally; "well that's not MY fault". But guess what? We live in a society that helps eachother. We've set up this system called SOCIAL SECURITY, that actually %100 works, just as long as the fuckers in Washington keep their fucking greedy hands out of it.

To expect people to wisely be able to navigate the infinitely complex system that is stocks/savings/etc is a fucking joke.


3• Infrastructure and Public Works
You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.Me

Without "public works" we wouldn't have this little thing called the interwebs where you get all your awesome Austrian Economics video clips from. We wouldn't have NASA. We wouldn't have sequenced the genome. We wouldn't have developed AIDS prevention methods, and a myriad of other things that you actually value, but for some reason think that just some joe-schmoe could've invented in his garage if only he wasn't paying for some "welfare queen" or whatever.



There are millions of us who love NASA, love the NEA, love PBS, love C-Span, love the CDC, and there's plenty more.

This is sick...every single official tries to blame it on someone else - it's not the bus driver's fault, it's the district's fault for not providing a monitor, it's the NEA's fault for not putting the requirement for a monitor in writing, etc.

The simple fact is that there's plenty of blame to go around. The district is certainly at fault for not making sure he had a monitor (and for trying to deny the fact that the request for a monitor was in writing), but the bus driver is primarily at fault for acting like a behaviorally challenged child herself. She's an adult, responsible for the safe transport of multiple special needs children, which means that, regardless of anyone else's shortcomings, it is her own damn fault that she got up, walked to the back of the bus, and choked a child. There is no excuse, and it is inexcusable that the district put her back to work on another bus for a while.

#1 was part of Bush's platform and one of the first things he did after his inauguration, and #5 has little to do with the federal government or the commerce clause of the federal constitution. #5 is about local elections being influenced by religious extremists who believe the world is 6000 years old and vote Republican in part because Republican-appointed judges are less likely to see the establishment clause violation in replacing part of the science curriculum with the Old Testament.

It has everything to do with the federal mafia's "education" racket. If education was completely privatized the way it should be, all these activists and do-gooders--including the federal mafia--would be sh't out of luck. All the activists could do is start schools of their own. Wouldn't you like to see if an atheistic academy can compete with a religious one?

The OFBCI has never given a grant to a non-christian religious organization. It's purpose is very clear: to provide federal funding for Bush's version of Christianity.

What can I say, the government creates something and says, "Here are the self-imposed limits" and then crosses the line the next day. Plenty of government entities are unconstitutional by their very existence. You happen to have a problem with the OFBCI, I'm ready to see the NEA scrapped along with the post office monopoly, among others.

3. The "meddling" failed, nor was there any change in the laws.

Republican meddling failed because of public opposition to it, but the public hadn't the consistency to take anti-euthanasia laws off the books.

Schiavo was a confusing, horrific affair. Euthanasia laws are more complex than a religious view versus, what exactly? It's very easy to make the leap to the State deciding to pull plugs on costly coma patients. Even if Republicans instigated the interference, a majority opposed federal intervention which probably included conservatives as well.

#4 and #6 are the result of the values of the majority of the people. I don't necessarily agree with them. There are other reasons besides religious ones for the banning of gay marriage.

The bill of rights exists to prevent tyranny of the majority. More than 80% of US Citizens are christian, therefore we must be very careful not to create a christian theocracy.

I see no immediate danger of that happening with a Congress and Supremes hostile to even the mention of religion in schools and public arenas. We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.


Global warming has been steadily taking place since the last Ice Age. Nothing so far is outside the normal range of expected activity. Even the scientists who believe GW is man-made or influenced admit the effects of wrecking the world's economies with Kyoto and other protocols would not make a significant difference in the warming trend, nor do they predict seas rising more than a foot by 2100. What other logical conclusion could one reach then, except those foisting the hysteria on the world are seeking power?


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Well, #'s 1. and 5. I have to dismiss out-of-hand...

jonny,

If you would listen to Dr. Paul, you would realize that those issues wouldn't be a problem.

1) Get rid of the department of education? It should be one of the most heavily funded departments and, imo, should be reorganized to include NSF, NIH, NEA, etc. To leave curricula up to local control is madness, and is the reason we have local school boards trying to shove creationism down our kids throats. And additionally, notice how he thinks the federal courts should not prevent public schools from organizing prayer. While correct from a strict constructionist point of view, it's also crazy. It is true that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it seems to me that on the same legal basis, Congress should be able to prevent local authorities from doing the same.

The DoE is one of the most under-performing government agencies. Ever since it was created, the amount of federal money spent on education has increased while the quality of education for the average student has gone down. In any free market, such a department would be closed down, not given more money. But that's not even then point. The federal government has no authority to regulate education without a Constitutional amendment, as you mention. So, if you think federal government control of education would be better than local governments despite 225 years of contradictory evidence, by all means, change the Constitution. Otherwise, it's un-Constitutional.

2) Get rid of income tax? Well, what do you plan to replace that with Dr. Paul? A national sales tax that overwhelmingly favors the rich? Or perhaps you intend to institute a wealth tax?

Dr. Paul has already explained his position on the income tax quite thoroughly. You do realize that the income tax only covers approximately 30% of federal spending, so if you cut spending, it would be quite easy to do without an income tax. So, why replace it with anything? We did just fine without an income tax prior to 1913.

3) How about the federal goverment passing out money to people in New Orleans. Shameful and irresponsible. We should've just let it sink into the Gulf, right Ron? I wanted to jump through the tubes and throttle him for that one.

Once again, it's not the federal government's responsibility to redistribute wealth from citizens, regardless of the situation. At the same time, FEMA has proven itself to be an horrendously wasteful and inefficient government program, like most federal institutions.

Now that this has made it out of the queue, I figure I would go ahead and make my reasons for posting it known. I do not endorse Ron Paul. There are many issues on which I agree with him, mostly in terms of foreign policy. But in terms of domestic policy, he would be a nightmare, and this interview, more than any prepared campaign vid circulating on the net, shows exactly what he is about.

Some great instances of what I'm getting at:

1) Get rid of the department of education? It should be one of the most heavily funded departments and, imo, should be reorganized to include NSF, NIH, NEA, etc. To leave curricula up to local control is madness, and is the reason we have local school boards trying to shove creationism down our kids throats. And additionally, notice how he thinks the federal courts should not prevent public schools from organizing prayer. While correct from a strict constructionist point of view, it's also crazy. It is true that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it seems to me that on the same legal basis, Congress should be able to prevent local authorities from doing the same.

2) Get rid of income tax? Well, what do you plan to replace that with Dr. Paul? A national sales tax that overwhelmingly favors the rich? Or perhaps you intend to institute a wealth tax?

3) How about the federal goverment passing out money to people in New Orleans. Shameful and irresponsible. We should've just let it sink into the Gulf, right Ron? I wanted to jump through the tubes and throttle him for that one.

There's plenty more there to pick apart, and hopefully some others will, and really get this discussion going.

Government schools hooray. Who cares about education, the NEA union shits got what THEY wanted.