Arnold Vs Teachers Unions

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, it could be their shared love of selling an image to get elected, their shared disconnect between words and actions, or just possibly the number of times they kiss each other's ass to further their careers .... an image I sincerely hope will soon be erased from my short-term memory.

Funny, using that set of definitions, you could add every single fucking politician in the world and history.

See what I mean? Everything he says is a no-shit, Sherlock, obvious acorn of political cynicism that anyone with a brain has with nothing but the most mundane and obvious of conclusions where he does bother to state one. Its quite boring, really.

[Knife]

See what I mean? Everything he says is a no-shit, Sherlock, obvious acorn of political cynicism that anyone with a brain has with nothing but the most mundane and obvious of conclusions where he does bother to state one. Its quite boring, really.

*snort* You know, I'm thinking of sigging that. I think you've made my day Primus.

[Chmee]

Assertion: "Arnold isn't like any other politicians!"

Chmee response: <Things Arnold does>

Counter-response: "So, all politicians are like THAT!"

Chmee:

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Arnold differs from other (MOST OTHER!) polititians is, "He understands hard work."
What it realy is.
How you have to do it for a long time for a good payoff.
How the longer you delay the gratification, the bigger the payoff.
The amount of hours he has worked, both in the gym and as a bricklayer. (He got his first start in construction after the Sylmar earthquake.)
He made money at making movies, but made more money in real estate investments than in movies. He is thus familiar to all levels of society by vitue of being one once. Nobody, hustler bricklayer/bodybuilder, moviestar, investor, politician.
He has actualy had the balls to tell some folks to fuck off sideways, (in polispeak of coarse!) and has discussed the two elephants in the California living room. Out of controle government spending, and illeagal immigration.

^ You all can't know how refreshing it is to have a politician ackowledge the subject exsists but is forbidden to be spoken of by the party line.
He is pro abortion rights, AND pro gun rights.
Lower taxes AND civil rights protection.
And I have footage of him smoking pot, so I know what he thinks about the current priorities of government money and the "war on drugs."

I think the guy might actualy want to do some good, as he seems to have bought into the "American Dream" that so many cynicly snort when they hear about.

What ever else I hear about Arnold, any one who claims he is like "All The Other Politicians"tm is using tortured analogies whereby no one on this planet has more than 5 degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon.
You twist the scenareo enough and Arnold is more like me than anyone registered at SDnet.
Factor for age, and he is closest to me.
Factor for personel wealth, height, weight, or favorite color......

[Master of Ossus]

Chmee, back on page 2 I asked you to cite examples of long-term problems that Schwarzenegger is creating with his policies. You didn't do it. As for your assertions that someone is inextricably linked to someone else by endorsing them and being in the same party... that would make Michael Moore inextricably linked to John Kerry, and Bill Clinton inextricably linked to Jimmy Carter. I guess the fact that those individuals obviously disagreed over significant issues is irrelevant.

[Chmee]

Chmee, back on page 2 I asked you to cite examples of long-term problems that Schwarzenegger is creating with his policies. You didn't do it. As for your assertions that someone is inextricably linked to someone else by endorsing them and being in the same party... that would make Michael Moore inextricably linked to John Kerry, and Bill Clinton inextricably linked to Jimmy Carter. I guess the fact that those individuals obviously disagreed over significant issues is irrelevant.

Why roll your eyes, you might need them to actually read what I said ... I specifically pointed out that they *do* have policy differences and I never claimed they were irrelevant ... certainly in some people's minds, because of his strong endorsement, Moore will be linked to Kerry. Whether he or Arnold made more public appearances (and spent more money) in support of their Presidential preference, I wouldn't care to guess.

Sorry, in a dull meeting I have to pay minimal attention to atm, so can't really Google all the many articles about the long-term consequences of the deals Arnold has made thus-far. I would only say that there is no *proof* that these policies will result in fiscal chaos, just as there is no *proof* that his policies would lead to a Golden Age of peace, plenty and pure sparkling air in California .... with a little effort you can find cogent arguments for both viewpoints, I just tend to give somewhat more credence to the former position.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Translation: I have an opinion, and its the former.

Having an opinion doesn't mean anything on SDN. Either you support it with the most and hardest facts and the firmest argumentation, or you lose and concede. That's how it works.

[Chmee]

Translation: I have an opinion, and its the former.

Having an opinion doesn't mean anything on SDN. Either you support it with the most and hardest facts and the firmest argumentation, or you lose and concede. That's how it works.

I lost count, is that IP's third or fourth consecutive post that didn't speak to the topic but attempted to troll me? You don't have anything *but* opinions, so maybe you could keep them to yourself until they're on topic. Because frankly, your opinion of what 'means anything' at SDN is right up there with the value of the drachma on my list of things I couldn't care less about.

The people who disagree with me by expressing an interesting view, they get a discussion with me ... trolls, I blow off. You know this about me by now, so show some learning curve, big guy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I lost count, is that IP's third or fourth consecutive post that didn't speak to the topic but attempted to troll me? You don't have anything *but* opinions, so maybe you could keep them to yourself until they're on topic. Because frankly, your opinion of what 'means anything' at SDN is right up there with the value of the drachma on my list of things I couldn't care less about.

Ok, crotchmonkey.

I stated you didn't refute his argument, and you still have not. You made a noncommital wishy-washy "oh this could go one way or another....but you haven't convinced me" which is essentially an underhanded way of not conceding an argument even though you can't mount a rebuttal.

Personally, I have no interest in debating the plainly obvious with someone who does not state clear, precise, falsifiable conclusions.

The people who disagree with me by expressing an interesting view, they get a discussion with me ... trolls, I blow off. You know this about me by now, so show some learning curve, big guy.

I would be unable care less what an idiot without useful contribution like you thinks. Either concede the argument and move on, or actually refute his reply.

My position is stuff like this:

Well, it could be their shared love of selling an image to get elected, their shared disconnect between words and actions, or just possibly the number of times they kiss each other's ass to further their careers .... an image I sincerely hope will soon be erased from my short-term memory.

Is no-shit-Sherlock-that's-how-politics-have-been-going-for-millenia commentary, and stating some of the nigh-universal characteristics that Arnie, Bush, and Khufu all shared when it came to manipulating mobs to try and disprove a specific thesis for why Arnie is atypical for a politician is, plainly, stupid and devoid of meaning. It doesn't say a damn thing of significance. Its like replying to Skimmer stating that sub A is a boomer and sub B is an attack sub by noting they both cruise underwater. No shit. The common-to-all-politicians rhetoric is not significant.

[Plekhanov]

Arnold differs from other (MOST OTHER!) polititians is, "He understands hard work."
What it realy is.
How you have to do it for a long time for a good payoff.
How the longer you delay the gratification, the bigger the payoff.
The amount of hours he has worked, both in the gym and as a bricklayer. <snipped the rest of what was quite frankly a rather nauseating hymn to Arnold>

Have you ever actually done any political work Chrostas or do you prefer to just sneer from a distance? Because speaking as a politically active Brit it sounds like you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I know quite a few politicians and I find it difficult to conceive of how anybody could work harder than they do, politics may be lots of things but speaking from my personal experience at least one thing it definitely isn’t is easy. The parties go to a lot of effort to try and make everything appear smooth on the surface but it takes a stupendous effort by a candidate and their team for this to happen.

As for delayed gratification do tell me what a bodybuilder could possibly have to tell the activists I know who’ve worked a constituency up from nothing to a marginal over the last decade about that? Absurdly distorting your own body is a piece of piss in comparison to the effort it takes to interest the average citizen in serious politics.

[Tzeentch]

Fine, can those of us who are related to teachers, who get paid less then the janitors, and administrators, and who supply class "disposables" and many classroom computers out of their own pocket, because the admins won't fund it. can we now charge the amount of money spent by teacher's annually for overheads, pens, pencils, music supplies, books, disposable workbooks, etc. That our govenator and his predicesors refuse to pay for, along with the fact that the wages of teachers have been almost frozen for the last decade, to YOU who think they are standing in the way of reform?

Seconded. My mother is a teacher, and she's run ragged by her job for shitty pay; it kills me to see it.

Yeah, I do. It's obvious that good teachers do much better in the classroom than poor ones, and if we were able to fire off some of the deadweight and hire good teachers to replace them (for lower salaries, I might add), then we could free up funds for other things. Let me remind you that 40% of the state budget every year is spent on education.

How do you imagine we're going to get a big crop of good young teachers when you want to eliminate even the benefits of accrued seniority?

Also, wake up. Education, along with health care, is always going to be one of the state's biggest expenditures, simply because we can't automate it.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Yo Plekhanov, my comments were mainly directed at Chmee, and his Arnold is just like everyotherguy BS.
As to the difficulty factor, if you can tell me to my face with a straight face politics is harder work than construction, I can tell you that you have never done it for any lenght of time.
Most politicions never have done hard physical labour for a few years, nor have most political activists. Which is why they both try to spout the bullshit line than being a politician is harder than being a labourer. Heh!
You show me a man burned out and prematurly old from politics that didn't also live a shitty lifestyle, like being too fat, drinking and/or smoking too much. I can show you dozens that lived healthy but worked hard, and just plain wore their bodies out working too hard.

A quick summation of points.
Hard work is unapreciated by those who haven't done it.
Most politicians have not done hard work as defined by the majority of their constituants.
(I use John McCain as an exception )

You sir, sound like a man who hasn't done the equivalent of digging ditches or bricklaying, which is why you can make the laughable claim that a political activist works as hard as a day labourer.

[Darth Wong]

This is fucking retarded. According to Chmee, the only way a politician can possibly distance himself from the pack is to have no connections, no political skills, no interest in his constituents' wishes, and no political strategy.

[Master of Ossus]

Why roll your eyes, you might need them to actually read what I said ... I specifically pointed out that they *do* have policy differences and I never claimed they were irrelevant ... certainly in some people's minds, because of his strong endorsement, Moore will be linked to Kerry. Whether he or Arnold made more public appearances (and spent more money) in support of their Presidential preference, I wouldn't care to guess.

What, exactly, do you want him to do in order to distance himself from every other politician? Should he simply burn every single bridge, never take political contributions, never speak with anyone outside of his office, and never endorse any candidate or legislation?

Sorry, in a dull meeting I have to pay minimal attention to atm, so can't really Google all the many articles about the long-term consequences of the deals Arnold has made thus-far. I would only say that there is no *proof* that these policies will result in fiscal chaos, just as there is no *proof* that his policies would lead to a Golden Age of peace, plenty and pure sparkling air in California .... with a little effort you can find cogent arguments for both viewpoints, I just tend to give somewhat more credence to the former position.

I'll take that as a concession--you have NO evidence for what you spout off.

[His Divine Shadow]

The education problem is serious and legislature is a serious obstacle, I vote we grant the governor emergency powers for the duration of this crisis.

[His Divine Shadow]

Is it just me or is 95% of Chmee's posts long-winded moanfests of how politics and society is corrupt without a constructive and substantive solution or conclusions attached to the end?

Eh, after the third post or so I just started skipping his posts and the replies to them.

[Master of Ossus]

Yeah, I do. It's obvious that good teachers do much better in the classroom than poor ones, and if we were able to fire off some of the deadweight and hire good teachers to replace them (for lower salaries, I might add), then we could free up funds for other things. Let me remind you that 40% of the state budget every year is spent on education.

How do you imagine we're going to get a big crop of good young teachers when you want to eliminate even the benefits of accrued seniority?

I want to see it replaced with a system that rewards competence instead of seniority, which is MUCH better as a recruiting tool for quality teachers than a system which rewards seniority. Think about it: good teachers probably have skills that can be translated into other things, like business, which KILL teaching in terms of salaries and benefits. Should a college grad decide that they want to teach, understanding it'll be 10 or 15 years before they make what would be their STARTING wages in business, or should they go into business and actually have a life? The whole "rewards for good performance" thing is something we have in business and it's been proven effective. It's also something that the Teachers' Unions are fighting tooth-and-nail.

Also, wake up. Education, along with health care, is always going to be one of the state's biggest expenditures, simply because we can't automate it.

The fact remains, though, that CA spends dramatically more money on education (in absolute terms and as a percentage of the budget) then the national average (40% vs. 30.2%), yet consistently ranks near last by virtually every measure of educational bench-marks. Gray Davis FLOODED the state schools with money, yet it was totally wasted--the state's rankings have not improved. If I'm not going to see ANY results for my taxpayer dollars, I'd rather just have them spent on something else which can actually generate improvement. Davis' policies demonstrated conclusively that the problem with the state's education is not the amount of money but what it's being spent on.

[Petrosjko]

The fact remains, though, that CA spends dramatically more money on education (in absolute terms and as a percentage of the budget) then the national average (40% vs. 30.2%), yet consistently ranks near last by virtually every measure of educational bench-marks. Gray Davis FLOODED the state schools with money, yet it was totally wasted--the state's rankings have not improved. If I'm not going to see ANY results for my taxpayer dollars, I'd rather just have them spent on something else which can actually generate improvement. Davis' policies demonstrated conclusively that the problem with the state's education is not the amount of money but what it's being spent on.

Yup.

And for an educational system that's flooded with money, at least in Fontana California (burb of LA) people are having to pay up front for bussing their kids. Shows how well trickle-down budgeting works, doesn't it?

We've been flooding education in this country with money for... well, all my life. It's a political no-brainer. "More money for the KIDS!"

The issue needs to be bluntly redefined as a matter of oversight and not budget. And the administration levels need a Kruschevian purge with a veritable blizzard of pink slips, the cocksuckers.

[Tzeentch]

I want to see it replaced with a system that rewards competence instead of seniority, which is MUCH better as a recruiting tool for quality teachers than a system which rewards seniority. Think about it: good teachers probably have skills that can be translated into other things, like business, which KILL teaching in terms of salaries and benefits.Should a college grad decide that they want to teach, understanding it'll be 10 or 15 years before they make what would be their STARTING wages in business, or should they go into business and actually have a life? The whole "rewards for good performance" thing is something we have in business and it's been proven effective. It's also something that the Teachers' Unions are fighting tooth-and-nail.

You've just contradicted yourself here. The problem with recruiting talented teachers is, as you say, salaries and benefits. No college grad with the skills and drive to make it in business has much incentive to go into teaching, and eliminating the seniority system alone isn't going to do a thing to change that.

There are other problems with comparison, as well. An excellent businessman makes a lot of money for his company; it's cost-effective to keep him, even if he is paid a lot. An excellent teacher, on the other hand, doesn't make any money for his school; under a skill-based salary system, its more cost-effective to fire him and hire someone who's merely competent for a lower salary. This tendency would only be amplified by the lack of granularity in assessments of teaching. By comparing earnings, costs and profits, one can gain a much more objective assessment of a businessman's performance than one could from a teacher with peer reports, student evaluations and standardized tests. It is thus much easier to establish a baseline of competence (which could be used in hiring even under a seniority system) than it is to accurately compare different teachers for payroll purposes.

Without a seniority system, it's always cheaper to fire a teacher who has worked their way up the salary ladder and hire a fresh young face. This doesn't occur in business because businessmen are arranged in a vertical hierarchy of ascending pay and responsibility, while teachers are organized laterally with different payscales but similar responsibilities : switching the middle manager doesn't affect the position's salary; replacing the history teacher very well may.

[Darth Wong]

You've just contradicted yourself here. The problem with recruiting talented teachers is, as you say, salaries and benefits. No college grad with the skills and drive to make it in business has much incentive to go into teaching, and eliminating the seniority system alone isn't going to do a thing to change that.

Bullshit. Eliminating the seniority system means that young, talented teachers will rise faster in the system than old clock-punchers.

There are other problems with comparison, as well. An excellent businessman makes a lot of money for his company; it's cost-effective to keep him, even if he is paid a lot. An excellent teacher, on the other hand, doesn't make any money for his school; under a skill-based salary system, its more cost-effective to fire him and hire someone who's merely competent for a lower salary.

Which is why some form of teacher evaluation system is necessary, with school funding tied to these evaluations. Managerial staff (ie- principals, etc) should also be forbidden from joining the union. It's fucking absurd for management and labour to both be part of the same union, as is common practice in many public education systems.

This tendency would only be amplified by the lack of granularity in assessments of teaching. By comparing earnings, costs and profits, one can gain a much more objective assessment of a businessman's performance than one could from a teacher with peer reports, student evaluations and standardized tests. It is thus much easier to establish a baseline of competence (which could be used in hiring even under a seniority system) than it is to accurately compare different teachers for payroll purposes.

So? That doesn't mean it's impossible to come up with a better evaluation than "you have been here for 10 years, therefore you must be two grades better than that guy over there who's only been here for 5 years". The seniority system is a fucking kick in the teeth to parents, who want the best education for their kids, not the best education for lazy-ass high-seniority teachers.

Without a seniority system, it's always cheaper to fire a teacher who has worked their way up the salary ladder and hire a fresh young face.

Correct. Fuck him.

This doesn't occur in business because businessmen are arranged in a vertical hierarchy of ascending pay and responsibility, while teachers are organized laterally with different payscales but similar responsibilities : switching the middle manager doesn't affect the position's salary; replacing the history teacher very well may.

Bullshit. In private industry, old guys who don't earn their pay are fired all the time. What the fuck kind of Peter Pan fantasy world do you live in?

[Master of Ossus]

You've just contradicted yourself here. The problem with recruiting talented teachers is, as you say, salaries and benefits. No college grad with the skills and drive to make it in business has much incentive to go into teaching, and eliminating the seniority system alone isn't going to do a thing to change that.

How is that a contradiction? I'm trying to lower the financial gap fir high-skill, high-talent people who are thinking about going into teaching and going into business. Offering them the immediate opportunity to raise their salary with good performance is an effective way of doing that, and it would be a reasonable replacement for a system of salary based on seniority.

There are other problems with comparison, as well. An excellent businessman makes a lot of money for his company; it's cost-effective to keep him, even if he is paid a lot. An excellent teacher, on the other hand, doesn't make any money for his school; under a skill-based salary system, its more cost-effective to fire him and hire someone who's merely competent for a lower salary.

Schools are given substantial incentives based on their performance compared to similar schools; teachers should be offered the same. Moreover, we're trying to improve the PERFORMANCE of the schools, not trying to maximize the revenue brought in. Drawing in skilled teachers to replace shitty ones is an effective way to do that, but it would also give schools with exceptionally poor teacher:student ratios the option of hiring lots of competent teachers as opposed to some competent but senior teachers, giving schools much more flexibility to address their specific needs.

This tendency would only be amplified by the lack of granularity in assessments of teaching. By comparing earnings, costs and profits, one can gain a much more objective assessment of a businessman's performance than one could from a teacher with peer reports, student evaluations and standardized tests. It is thus much easier to establish a baseline of competence (which could be used in hiring even under a seniority system) than it is to accurately compare different teachers for payroll purposes.

Colleges and universities have no problems measuring teachers' performances using any number of benchmarks. I won't pretend to have some perfect system for judging how good an individual teacher is, but a meritocracy is superior in terms of results to any system of pay based only on seniority.

Without a seniority system, it's always cheaper to fire a teacher who has worked their way up the salary ladder and hire a fresh young face.

Bullshit. That's not the way labor markets work. In fact, in labor markets it is frequently possible to lower costs by hiring and retaining expensive people.

Regardless and more importantly, I have NO idea how you come to the conclusion that a seniority system somehow prevents people from firing old people who have worked their way up the ladder in favor of young people when a meritocracy does.

Think about it for a second: in a seniority system, the ONLY reason one person is paid more than another is because they've worked for a long time. If I'm a principal, I can fire the old guy and get a younger (and therefore much cheaper) and potentially better replacement. In a meritocracy, if I get rid of my highest-paid teachers I'm also eliminating my BEST teachers, creating a counter-incentive.

This doesn't occur in business because businessmen are arranged in a vertical hierarchy of ascending pay and responsibility, while teachers are organized laterally with different payscales but similar responsibilities : switching the middle manager doesn't affect the position's salary; replacing the history teacher very well may.

Teachers are seriously divided vertically as well as laterally (ever heard of "department chairs?"). I can tell you straight up from personal experience that teachers who are high on the pay-scale teach better and more important classes than ones who have no seniority.

Moreover, old people in business who don't earn their keep are fired or laid off ALL THE TIME. A seniority system actually encourages this to happen more than a meritocracy.

[Wicked Pilot]

Good public school systems make good recruiting tools for high speed highly educated workers and their companes. If you want good schools then you'd better damn well have good teachers. I guarantee you if a private school was losing money because parents were disenrolling their kids due to slackass teachers there'd be some firings. Yet when no high paying companies move to a particular city because their schools suck balls no one gives a shit.

[Darth Servo]

Without a seniority system, it's always cheaper to fire a teacher who has worked their way up the salary ladder and hire a fresh young face.

It was the seniority system that made the old duffer the more expensive teacher in the first place.

[Cabwi Desco]

damn this makes me happy that teacher unions are, for all practical purposes, outlawed in Virginia.

keep 'em coming Arnold. Down with teacher unions! save our students!

[Tzeentch]

Bullshit. Eliminating the seniority system means that young, talented teachers will rise faster in the system than old clock-punchers.

It will provide some incentive, I agree. What I was disagreeing with was Ossus's claim that merely getting rid of the seniority system would allow the public school system to compete with business (and more pertinently, academia) for potential star teachers. While the seniority system may be an issue, the fact that school teachers as a whole get shitty salaries and benefits is a much bigger hurdle in attracting good teachers.

Which is why some form of teacher evaluation system is necessary, with school funding tied to these evaluations.

Tying school funding to teacher quality is a good idea; it's pretty much the only good way to incentivize the hiring of good teachers. Still, you need a pretty ironclad method of evaluation. What method would you propose?

Managerial staff (ie- principals, etc) should also be forbidden from joining the union. It's fucking absurd for management and labour to both be part of the same union, as is common practice in many public education systems.

I agree.

So? That doesn't mean it's impossible to come up with a better evaluation than "you have been here for 10 years, therefore you must be two grades better than that guy over there who's only been here for 5 years". The seniority system is a fucking kick in the teeth to parents, who want the best education for their kids, not the best education for lazy-ass high-seniority teachers.

Perhaps seniority shouldn't be the only determinant in salary, but if you've been there for 10 years, you probably have some experience which makes you a better teacher than someone with less experience, but that might not come out on a "teacher knowledge" standardized test. In universities, teaching aptitude is based on student evaluations, but I don't think that's viable at the elementary and high school level, because many of the kids are too immature to do fair and accurate evaluations.

Correct. Fuck him.

Assuming competence on behalf of the teachers, should they have any job security?