This is true; I did not read the article. I get to reading these slashdot threads about education and the evils of unions and I just start reacting. Your example of the top 10% and bottom 10% teacher being in the same school doesn't sound right to me. Would you be surprised if the top 10% of students in a district and the bottom 10% were in the same school?

Also, "some truth...a large degree...dependent" is not the categorical "all results are due solely to the teacher" that I ususally see. For more on this, consider reading The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Diane Ravitch.

If I weren't a teacher myself, I would pay good money to see the results of all these raging non-teachers prescribing that we need easier and faster firing and all the problems of schools would go away. Are you a woman on the wrong side of 40? Bye. Are you a minority who looks like a terrorist? Bye. Are you the superintendent's $RELATIVE? You have a job for life. After all, who better to make decisions about teachers' jobs than mostly former physical educators (administrators, by and large.) No citation needed, just like in all the posts where people claim that some teachers work hard and most do very little. I believe that because I read it on slashdot.

BTW I wouldn't be worried so much for my own job in a scenario with easier firing. I'd be worried about my class sizes doubling and my incoming students being less prepared because their previous teacher was hired as a cost-cutting measure more than anything else. Where I work, the upper admins have got it into their head that they're the ones making the decisions that lead most directly to student success. The success is in the programs and initiatives, not the teachers. Try doing that without us. Success comes from administrators and from community support and whoever else you want to make feel good. Failure is the only thing you can peg to the teacher. I realize this is not the substance of the article, and my post is therefore not on topic as far as that goes. I think it is on the topic of the discussion that has ensued, however.

There are bad teachers, and unions protect them insofar as they protect all of us. If the school administration is unable or too lazy to demonstrate incompetence through an established process, that's on them.

The reason schools can't tell who's a good teacher and who isn't is that the problem itself is very difficult. There are many factors that lead to effect size besides the teacher. Many people in education reform have latched on to the idea that every measurement taken on student progress can be attributed wholly to the teacher. This is absolutely not true.

It's also amusing that you think higher pay won't work and easier firing will work. The problem with schools is not the small percent of phone-it-in teachers.

The TX Rangers are an interesting example. Mr. Bush and a group of investors bought the team when they did not have a stadium. This allowed the acquisition at a bargain price. They then hired a team of lawyers to lobby the city to raise sales tax 1% in order to build a new stadium. A team with a stadium is worth much more than one without, so they were sold at a profit. Where did the money come from? The taxpayers in the city of Arlington were made to subsidize baseball whether they enjoyed baseball or not. The investors then captured the subsidy. This is a case (as are most stadiums) of taking public money and building a private park. The park still charges admission, and the team gets to sell luxury sky boxes. That money does not go back to the taxpayers. I would say the Rangers are a very good example of socialize debt and privatize profits.

If you took all such government subsidy out of Major League Baseball or the National Football League, they'd be operating at a loss. By the way, the entity that built the stadium is prohibited by law from buying the team and getting those revenues.

So why are you surprised?

And what about now? You keep saying "were" and "was" but I said that the Taliban is not a jihadist organization. Which I think is true. I think you're giving them too much credit for honesty. They don't believe in jihad - they don't tell the farmers this because they believe it. They just use religion to further their financial goals. That's sort of the opposite of jihad.

Gretchen Peters: Seeds of Terror - BookTV start at 37:00.

The Taliban have this bogus justification that they explain to farmers that they persuade or force to grow poppy. Islam, of course, bans any use, traffic, or trade in narcotics or alcohol. So, their justification for it is that it's OK because because this is a jihad against the infidels and we're selling the drugs to the infidel west. But as I said before, very little Afghan heroin actually reaches the United States. It's about 70% of the heroin sold in Europe and the UK comes from Afghanistan. But the vast majority of Afghanistan's drug crop ends up in - stays in Afghanistan, or ends up in Pakistan, Iran, central Asia now; countries like Kazakhstan have huge huge heroin problems. So it's a totally bogus argument - completely hypocritical.

If you have time, I recommend the entire video,and her book Seeds of Terror. Ms. Peters is sharp.

The Taliban is really not a jihadist organization, if you measure the degree of jihad by looking at the people doing the actual work. They're protecting their drug trade. Attacks are often diversions to keep foreign military forces away from their convoys of tractor-trailers loaded with narcotics.

Here's some support for your argument: BioWare RPG Cliche Chart.

This trailer is monumentally stupid. Towards the end, our hero says "Vader can't stop me now...no one can." In that case, why go through the charade of waiting for Vader to leave you with a roomful of hapless stormtroopers at the beginning? If you're sick of Vader's betrayals, why not just kill him immediately? Oh that's right.

So either the first game has a lot of complicated history between the two that makes it OK to kill literal tons of stormtroopers and not the man responsible, or it's hamstrung by its license. I already own STFU and just never finished it because I dislike playing evil. Maybe I will pick it back up.

I want to append that you should talk to your state board and legislature, which are far more likely to be behind bullshit testing programs than the local board. The law is the law after all. If students need to pass certain tests in order to graduate high school, districts are going to make sure that they pass the tests.

I've been a teacher for a long time now and I've only ever seen parents promote the idea that their children have ADHD in order to get special services. It doesn't take too much of this to make me despair for those kids after they graduate and don't have the environment of handholding. Why on earth would a school want to label children with a condition that forces them to cost more money to educate? That's as cynically as I can put it, in case you're a cynic.

Most of the teachers I have known can pretty well recognize what gets called ADHD these days. Those kids require a certain approach, as do all kids. But the paperwork alone is motivation not to try and get those children special services.

We also don't really enjoy seeing kids on medication that makes them feel ill all day. That's actually kind of a tough call because the right medication in the right dose (both very tricky to determine, as I understand it) makes a tremendous difference for some kids. That's what the students themselves tell me. But teachers don't really push for medication.

Maybe it's different in the elementary grades, with which I have no experience.

Planescape: Torment just missed the deadline by being released in 1999.

This is the first I've heard of this. Can you refer me to specific works? I used to be a mythology junkie when I was younger and I am eager to read some stuff I haven't read.

g a n d h i

Gretchen Peters: Seeds of Terror - BookTV start at about 37:00.

If you have time, I recommend the whole thing. Your post has motivated me to get her book from the library, so thanks.