Senate Bill: Atlasian Education Modernization Act (Rejected)

[Napoleon]

Yeah, i don't understand how something so stupid is so crucial to this bill. That wasn't explained in the Northeast when I asked about it, and it isn't being explained now.

I think 90% of this Senate will agree that the State should not fund private schools. Personally I don't see a problem with private schools charging tuition, obviously most of them offer tuition breaks and such to lower income students and that's well within their right. I think private schools should have to meet certain basic academic standards and other requirements but what this bill is asking for benefits neither private schools nor students.

[Napoleon]

In Finland

I hate to point out the obvious, but we aren't Finland. We're Atlasia, and the way we do things here is not easily compared to the way things are done in a socially homogenous nation smaller than the state of Wisconsin.

I understand Finland has had success with their system. Still, you'd think if it was the sole blueprint for success, we wouldn't be the only nation trying to replicate such a system. I've always said that a regionalized education system is better than a top-down federal approach that TNF has hinted at because what works in certain cultures can be vastly different from the next. And I think this is a case of that. What works in Finland was designed with the Finnish population in mind- not Atlasia's. We have to do what works for Atlasia.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm about ready to cut this thing real short and just author a bill reforming standardized tests, as that is the only thing I feel we might reach some agreement on at this point.

[Napoleon]

I'm objecting to the amendment.

I'd like to remind the Senator that health care wasn't passed by people throwing out crucial aspects of the bill because "people might not agree with it".

[TNF]

I would just like to note that I am willing to support the majority of this bill if we remove public funding of private schools.

[MaxQue]

So I take it that no one's on board with giving every student the opportunity to attend any school they want, regardless if the school is public or private?  Because if we can't agree on something as basic as that, the bill is practically DOA, and I will scrap the entire thing without relinquishing sponsorship.

Well, that would force Catholic schools to accept the Muslims students and so on.
I agree with creating competition, but that's surely not by funding religious or for profit schools than we will attain that goal.

Anyways, what you propose would more or less nationalize pritave schools. The only difference between public and private under your bill is the owner of the school. Such changes would transform the structure of private schools in public ones and would lead to all schools being the same and defeat the goal of more competition.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to its adoption. I don't recall seeing an objection but I might be wrong since there were a lot of posts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote to come after completion of prior amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Objection entered by Senator Napoleon, vote pending completion of prior amendments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote pending completion of prior amendments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote pending completion of prior amendments

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection entered by Senator Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are going to be spending a long time just to work our way through amendments.


See now why I don't recognize texts that aren't offered explicitly as amendments? It allows you people to debate texts and settle controversies pre-process, if resolution of issues is possible of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This really got heated I see. Lets see:

56:03:
This seems acceptable. Loose guidelines with the flexibility necessary to innovate and select methods and techniques best suited to he class and situation in question, while still providing oversight. It also establishes the principals as being primarily responsible for the quality of teachers. I would go so far as to ease their ability to fire a failign teacher. This is in line with the proposals by Bill Bradley in his book, "The New American Story", which served as a guideline for my approach to the "GET Act" last Winter and Spring. There is one slight area of disagreement and that is pertaining to possibly certifying retired professionals to teach classes related to their fields. You wouldn't have a mechanic teaching english or pedophiles overrunning the joint (it is not as if education standards have any impact on that as recent history should attest) as the teacher's unions like to rave about. I mean getting a businessman to teach business, and IT guy to teach computers, a mechanic to teach automotive repair. Regions should be able to decide on whether or not to allow this or not, and thus their should be an exemption implaced in the text. I think relying on education level is an insufficient measure of teacher quality, in my opinion, but we should definitely have some kind of standards.

56:04:
Ah? No, just no. Local funding (with some federal support) and local control on most issues, with only enough oversight and guidelines to ensure federal money is being used appopriately.

56:05:
No, this by and large goes much too far in my opinion. It appears to be attempting to organize the schools like some state owned factory in the Soviet Union as opposed to the professional education environment that it should be. It exerts too much federal control and too many unnecessary requirements, when we should set a basic guidelines for receiving assistance (the goals or objectives basically) while providing the most control and as close to the teacher in the classroom as possible and less and less going back up to Nyman. I think we should empower the Principal and this amendment will instead turn them into a servant of the teacher, rather than being a servant of the students and parents looking for an advocate for the school's overall quality. The exact opposite of what we should be doing basically. 

56:06:
The Federal Gov't should leave these decisions up to the region and provide the them and more importantly the LEAs the ability to experiment with alternative models, provided they meet a minimume set of results/improvement.

56:07:
Curriculum and testing methods should also be determined at the local level, with a basic oversight regime and a set of minimum standards to ensure the federal money isn't being misused or wasted.

56:08:
I think there is a problem with the amendment in question as it doesnt appear to do what the sponsor desires with it.

Private Schools:

Banning Tuition - No.
Gov't funding them all - No, we shouldn't be funding parochial schools, nor should we put them out of business either.

The approach to the private schools by almost all of you guys is just pure insane. It is as if you are more concerned about closing off the only escape hatch then fixing the problems that make it so damn appealing in the first place. The kids won't stay young while many of you guy's ideas get adopted and fail. They will grow up and graduate from a crappy school or drop out, only to then lead a life of poverty and possibly ending up in jail. If a Region, thinks that school choice is an option to be placed on the table, then by all means go for it. I mean what the hell Scott? Is murdering private education the primary focus of education reform? I was of the opinion that it was white flight that f'ed up education in Detroit, not the Charter schools they foolishly refused to allow a few years ago. I don't see how you guys can in good conscience deny school choice before fixing the broke public schools first. Only in the most isolated of echo chambers could that possibly make sense.

We should empower and provide the flexibility to the Regions and LEAs to experiment and discover the best ways to acheive results and improvement for all the people in their regions. I am disappointed by TNF's negative opinion of the Region's taking the lead on this issue. I am of the opinion that the hard work done by members of his party and members of my party working together in the IDS or that of Scott and the various figures in the NE would provide a clear advocacy for the contrary opinion in this case. That is more work to be done and there are areas where the Federal Government can and should provide support, but that should be the limit of our involvement.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Local funding will never be able to address the disparities in education. This is why Atlasia is so far behind -- the federal government won't accept its responsibility to fund education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

'Too much federal control' is kind of rich when you consider that my amendment basically turns control of the schools over to the teachers themselves. That's a lot more 'small government' than whatever it is being proposed elsewhere in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but the Regions are far too prone to inactivity or mismanagement to trust with such a vital issue as the education of Atlasian children.

[MaxQue]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

[TNF]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time? I don't see how making it easier to fire teachers will make the quality of Atlasian education improve. This is a trojan horse. The issue is funding. If we fund our schools appropriately, we will have educational improvement. We won't have improvements in education by attacking teachers; I'm surprised a fellow Laborite is making that fallacious claim.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

[TNF]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

Well, as Max said, unions are making it hard for schools to replace incompetent teachers.  That practice shouldn't continue.

[TNF]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

Well, as Max said, unions are making it hard for schools to replace incompetent teachers.  That practice shouldn't continue.

Do you have any proof to back this accusation up?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

Well, as Max said, unions are making it hard for schools to replace incompetent teachers.  That practice shouldn't continue.

Do you have any proof to back this accusation up?

http://blog.timesunion.com/schools/firing-bad-teachers-nearly-impossible/1459/

[TNF]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

Well, as Max said, unions are making it hard for schools to replace incompetent teachers.  That practice shouldn't continue.

Do you have any proof to back this accusation up?

http://blog.timesunion.com/schools/firing-bad-teachers-nearly-impossible/1459/

No quantifiable data, just anecdotes here. What percentage of bad teachers are kept on the job because of their union, Scott? Actually, I'd like to know what this bill defines as a 'bad teacher', because nowhere does it define what are the grounds by which a principal may fire a teacher, it just gives a principal the right to terminate a teacher without regard to due process. You mention an evaluation procedure, but why should teachers not have a say in how they are evaluated? Surely a teacher-created or even co-created evaluation process is far more fair than a process determined by some bean counter at the DoIA or a school principal.

[MaxQue]

I concur with Yankee. Currently, it's way too hard to get rid of incompetant teachers. They are a big problem in the system, yet, unions protect very much.

Should not teachers have a guaranteed position, provided they are doing their jobs and not breaking the law after a certain amount of time?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but if the unions are protecting incompetent teachers, don't you think that's a problem that should be addressed?

Are the unions protecting incompetent teachers?

Well, as Max said, unions are making it hard for schools to replace incompetent teachers.  That practice shouldn't continue.

Do you have any proof to back this accusation up?

http://blog.timesunion.com/schools/firing-bad-teachers-nearly-impossible/1459/

No quantifiable data, just anecdotes here. What percentage of bad teachers are kept on the job because of their union, Scott? Actually, I'd like to know what this bill defines as a 'bad teacher', because nowhere does it define what are the grounds by which a principal may fire a teacher, it just gives a principal the right to terminate a teacher without regard to due process. You mention an evaluation procedure, but why should teachers not have a say in how they are evaluated? Surely a teacher-created or even co-created evaluation process is far more fair than a process determined by some bean counter at the DoIA or a school principal.

I agree there must be a process to be sure the termination is deserved and the right choice.
But, yes, it's an issue. I had pretty big issues with an especially incompetent teacher and I was knowing well my principal (we knew each other from before her being a principal) and she said me than I wasn't the first, than they attempted to terminate her but the union did all to block it.

Oh, it's totally normal than unions do that. Union members are paying dues to be defended in those cases. If the union did nothing, it would be a bad union.

But terminaison must be avaliable if there is issues. Either quality-wise issues or behaviour-wise issues (which may be quite horrible, believe me, we had horror stories at my high school, like the Enhlish teacher teaching nothing, leaving on sick leave in April and letting the replacing teacher teach all the program in one month. He did that for years and the principal was unable to do anything, as he had too much seniority).

Sure, it's only isolated cases, but I saw too in my life to consider than it's only my schools which are unlucky.

[MaxQue]

The issue is funding. If we fund our schools appropriately, we will have educational improvement. We won't have improvements in education by attacking teachers; I'm surprised a fellow Laborite is making that fallacious claim.

Money will not solve magically all problems. It will solves many, but not all.
I'm not attacking teachers. I'm attacking incompetent people. Being Laborite and pro-union doesn't mean I'm support protecting incompetent people.

[DemPGH]

The problem is, "good teaching," unless we're using very basic, broad criteria of actually teaching and actually engaging with students, is too hard to quantify. When I was in high school my friends and I would frequently disagree about the good teachers and the bad teachers. So that needs to be said.

Now, I have some real world knowledge of education law in the US, and it basically works this way: under 3-4 years on average a teacher is not tenured or "permanent status." They can be fired for any reason. And it does happen. After a teacher is tenured or permanent, particularly if in a local union, it's much harder to fire them: those cases go to court, and it is hard. A veteran teacher will not be fired for anything less than pretty serious misconduct. Most admins won't attempt it unless there is misconduct of some serious, quantifiable, provable nature. There are wrongful firings, and there are teachers allowed to scrape by who should not be. The issue is really a massive "can of worms." There is no clear cut way out of it, IMO, other than to attract bright people who love the fields they teach and thus will not become jaded as easily or as quickly. And that's another problem: a thirty-five year career as a teacher is too long.

[Gass3268]

I would like to direct the Senate to a bill we passed in the Mideast in late 2012. There are definitely some good ideas in here on how teachers should be paid, evaluated and receive education level promotions.  

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/A.R._2:_Teaching_Reform_Act_of_2012

[TJ in Oregon]

I would like to direct the Senate to a bill we passed in the Mideast in late 2012. There are definitely some good ideas in here on how teachers should be paid, evaluated and receive education level promotions.  

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/A.R._2:_Teaching_Reform_Act_of_2012

I think the Mideast system is quite good, but I also don't think the federal government needs to outline a particular formula to the extent of the Mideast's. I would be fine with specifying that the system must take performance into account in some fashion, but that's as far as I think we ought to go on the federal level.