That's well above the median pay in CA. Further, that $70 doesn't include benefits. Calculate that in and teachers are, in fact, doing VERY well in CA.

There was a time when working a "public" job meant taking lesser pay for greater benefits and retirement...

You either don't live in California or you don't really read the news much.

Republicans are effectively a non-entity in California. The republicans no longer even a speed bump on Sacramento passing anything.

While the prison guards union DOES pay to the republicans, it, like the teachers unions, pay much more to the democrats.

"Voucher will just destroy the school system, and do NOTHING to improve education. "

Good. Maybe it needs to be destroyed. And as far as "improving education", there's a REASON why parents want their kids elsewhere -- and that's because the public schools are failing in what they are designed to do.

" It's all based on the myth the private education is better."

You're wrong. It's based on the fact that when presented with a choice, parents will pick the school with the best results IN THEIR AREA. They may have a crappy public school and a less crappy charter or private school and when those are the ONLY choices, you pick the less crappy.

"Even then it's hard to say if its the educational system, or just affluent parents leading to success."

It's easy to say: It's a combination of teachers who must perform, parents who are involved and resources available to the students. With public schools, you are often missing the first two -- and if that's the case, there will NEVER be enough of the third. Nobody has unlimited resources. We need to pull out kids who either cant keep up or are too disruptive and put them where we can focus the extra resources THEY need rather than slowing down or back-peddling the bulk of the student body.

"You want to improve the school system in CA? Get rid of prop 13."

Wrong. Tossing money at the problem at the expense of tax payers (who are already overtaxed in CA) is a solution that has yet to yield results. The "reported" per student cost in CA is grossly under reported. Toss in the bond money (of which CA taxpayers have been extremely generous) and capitol expenses and the per student cost is well between 20k-30k.

BTW, you never answered my question in the previous thread where you suggested I was lying. click me

"We invoke the past every time we use one of those old maxims like 'turn up the volume""

Off topic, yes, but I'd like add that my wifes side of the family are immigrants and either naturalized Americans or residents on their way to citizenship. I hear daily the slaughter of many old sayings like the one you cite. Like "turn up the noise".

Some of it is language translations on the fly. My favorite is when my wife is angry and she wants to say something like: "Thats it! PERIOD!" What she ends up saying is "That's it! POINT!"

Now back on topic. You are right -- I do end up explaining a lot of idioms and where they derive to my kids. Or sometimes I need to explain why there is a glass TARDIS out in the middle of nowhere (old phone booth). I got a belly laugh when my daughter asked me that...

"Do you (or do you plan to) educate your kids about any particular older technologies? "

I was never taught how to knap rocks in to spear heads so I don't really think it's necessary for me to teach my kids how vacuum tubes work.

That said, my kids are pretty curious on their own. My daughter at age 10 modified a gear kit to turn a spiral in a tube to dispense dog food on a timer (not for real world applications, but for a science project) and built a circuit to set off an alarm when her drawer is opened -- granted, that started out as a kit, but she learned a bit and modified the alarm to be louder and the photocell to be more sensitive. She's also a fairly steady hand with a soldering iron now, too.

My son is more interested in how to work things rather than how things work, if that makes sense.

They just needed to land at night when it's not so hot.

Bite me.

According to Mileage Keeper (which I track my gas consumption for the last 2+ years -- and the spreadsheet I tracked before then collecting data from my ancient treo and less ancient android), my last gas bill was $50.86. I had traveled 323 miles, gas was 3.599 per gallon and my mileage was 22.8 mpg. Before that 20.9, before that, 22.7 mpg. Going back to last year when I needed to make a run from LA to Fresno I, as expected, got 27.9 mpg.

I also have the receipts for all work performed on it since 1995 (lost the earlier stuff in a fire). I keep the truck in decent shape (at least the engine -- the cab looks like a disaster), keep the tires at the right pressure, I don't have a heavy foot and I'm easy on the clutch.

click me

Which pretty much matches with what I claim.

Is there a particular reason you find the need to be a prick? Or is it instinct and/or genetics?

"We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect"

Um... no. We must have the blind ambition to push beyond some perceived limits of our intellect. Humility for our achievements -- but aggressive in our progress. I for one would like to see my great^x grand children living on another rock circling another fireball one day.

"The price of gas has literally multiplied several times in my lifetime and I'm not much older than 30. It will for your children too. Electric cars that are as or more convenient than gas powered ones will come when it costs 300 bucks to fill a tank."

I'm 46. The cheapest I ever paid for gas was around $0.85/gal. The most I've paid was about $4.99. I currently pay about $3.80. I'm looking at a 4x price increase in my driving lifetime (which is about your entire lifetime). 30 years before my first tank of gas the cost was around $0.25 per gallon. Once again, about a 4x increase (a close enough estimate, anyway). And when adjusted for inflation, was much more expensive "way back when". If that trend continues, my kids kids may be spending around $16 per gal 30 years down the road. And yes, it might hockey-stick...

You'll see behavior change before any massive adoption changes. If it costs $300 to fill a tank people will shift to walking to stuff that's less than a few miles away. Or greater bike usage for near by trips. Only when the cost of running a gas car per mile per year (including the cost of the vehicle) is greater than that of an electrical vehicle you will see a shift to a majority of electric vehicles being sold.

I'm atypical and regularly drive around 2000 mile per year. My vehicle is a 26 year old toyota pick up which gets about 22 mpg (4 banger which sees little freeway driving where it gets between 26-29 mpg).

I spend about $350 per year on gas. I own the vehicle. It costs me less than $500 in maintenance per year. Why the HECK would I spend ANYTHING for an electric car or otherwise when these are the numbers? I'd be throwing away money.

.

"We are arguing about two different things here. I am arguing about reforming the system - you are arguing about finding a good school for your kids. "

I don't think we are. The reforms you are talking about wont work -- particularly in my area. Pay of teachers is good at the public level.

click me

When benefits (which are incredibly generous) are added to the mix, it's actually a very good deal -- so I've no idea what you are talking about.

I can find numerous counter examples where schools/students perform well with average pay BELOW the average.

With regards to reforming the system, I don't disagree. Reform away. But until we can (A) get rid of teachers easier, (B) provide a choice to parents on where to PLACE their kids and (C) (don't think it's required, but certainly would help) CLOSE a failed school (let it re-open either as a charter or with new administrative/teaching staff), then I don't see reform working.

I read somewhere in this thread a very insightful observation:

click me too

"closing is a feature, not a bug".

I am totally heartless when it comes to caring if a teacher is employed or not. I care about what they get out of their class. In the same vein, if I go to McDonalds and order a cheese burger and it is brought to me more or less as I expect, great. If it comes messy, missing onions or pickles, then I don't care if the guy on the food line loses his job or not. Fix the problem or I go else where. THAT should be the reform. IT SIMPLY WORKS.

I don't think you know the definition of sociopathy.

The "disinterest" in others isn't universal in instances of death penalty cases and also very reasonable. Particularly to those who have been victims or are relatives of victims of violent crimes.

I have not only sympathy, but EMPATHY for anyone who states "no crueler than what he did to the victim". To call THAT person "no better than the bad guys" and cite it as 'sociopathic' and a 'sad state of humanity' is a gross mischaracterization and just just poor reasoning.

If I have a cancerous growth, I have it treated -- and the treatment always is to kill the cancer -- not to lock it behind the pinky-toe, feed it and keep it warm for the rest of the hosts life. I find it difficult to grant "humanity" to such monsters. I don't care if they can walk, talk, feel pain -- whatever. They have done something inhuman.

I speak as the parent of a young child who was kidnapped and brutally and repeatably raped. I also speak as someone who has been steadfastly opposed to the death penalty. I would be lying if I told you that event hasn't effected my "world view" on capitol crimes. While I still lean anti-capitol punishment for both practical (it's too expensive to put someone to death) and moral (religious reasons) -- I find this position very difficult to justify at times. I keep hoping to hear that *MY* daughter's monster 'accidentally' fell on a pointed stick -- several times and in all honestly I will probably rejoice his death. Less because of moral outrage and a desire for revenge (but yes, that is a part of it), but that something that could still cause so much harm and pain has been removed from this earth.

You should read the actual report and not just the summary. I have.

Check this out:

click me

Note that California is not listed -- nor do they do Charter by Charter check/comparison. There are Charter schools that are just terrible.

Now read this:

click me, too

Look at page 22.

"Charter schools are not homogeneous. They vary along a number of
dimensions: Thus, there is no single charter school effect. These
differences affect accessibility, achievement, operation, and gover-
nance as our outline below suggests."

I selected the school my children attend. I did the research. They out perform our local K-5 and 6-8. 9-12 also, with the exception of the magnet program within that school.

You dismiss Charter schools based on averages and comparison -- and I see my family picking a school that works well based on a little leg work and research and picking the best.

"Truly awful teachers get canned, no problem. At least here in Colorado. "

Good for Colorado. CA, it's not so easy. LAUSD has taken a lot of flack and last year the sacked something like 100-200 "lemon" teachers. Guess what? The union has sued. And the teachers aren't "really" fired. They're in what's called "teacher jail". They basically collect a paycheck while awaiting the results of an investigation. No teachers have REALLY been fired yet.

How much resources are used to get rid if bad teachers? Our county will end up spending between $100k-over a million in litigation costs per teacher -- with most never being fired. Some will "retire" where we get to spend MORE of our resources paying them for the rest of their lives when they should be fired with cause (like sleeping in class -- can't tell you how many there were of those). Some will end up teaching at some other school in the district and very very few are actually let go.

Again, you talk about tossing more money at the problem. Again, I disagree. The teachers at our school make less than the local average for teachers. Clearly, money is not the primary factor of the discrepancy in performance.

Gotta say -- looking at the pics brought back the emotional response I felt at the time. Much more subdued (so may years later), but nonetheless, I felt the shock and dismay and I was back in my parents home watching this unfold on a 19" tube TV.

"Here's the thing: I think the problem is that our teachers aren't good enough."

I disagree -- at least in terms of solving the problem. Half the problem is that our schools can not issue consequences for disruptive behavior. Further, many parents don't issue consequences for such behavior at home, either.

The other half is getting rid of bad teachers (either because they suck or just don't care). It's next to impossible. Training is fine and I don't disagree. I just don't see it matters much if you cant realistically get rid of poor teachers to begin with. If parents and schools provided consequences, you'd solve a major part of the problem.

Lastly, you talk about tossing money at the problem. In CA, spending on schools has been out pacing inflation for what? 20 years? And the quality of education and rates of graduation have steadily dropped. I cannot accept your solution of tossing yet more money at the problem and expect some how this time it will work. You need to remember -- the numbers you often hear about how much California spends per student is misleading and grossly inaccurate. It doesn't account for capital spending or the countless bonds the generous voters have passed several times per decade adding billions to the education budget (including teachers retirement security).