Almost No Teachers In District's Low-Performing Schools Considered 'Ineffective'

More on who comes into the classroom. A long-term study of kids from Baltimore showing that, generally, a child's chance for success is fixed at birth with these questions -- how stable is the home, and how much money does the family make? It's not impossible to get ahead, but some other info in the study shows how for those with money and home stability (especially if they're white), they can screw around in ways that sink others, yet still get ahead.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid-poor-kid-for-30-years-baltimore-study-tracked-who-gets-ahead?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=morningedition&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140807

 

Sure. But the problem with that analysis is that it's possible that for as long as the study has been going on, those children have also been saddled with a significant percentage of ineffective teachers, as the effective teachers tend to gravitate toward more affluent districts.

There are probably very few high-income students in bad schools, but I'd like to see how family income level correlates with, say, SAT scores depending on the school. Is a 1400 SAT kid from a $200,000 family still a 1400 SAT kid if he went to Simeon instead of New Trier? And how much of the fall is attributable to bad teachers and how much is attributable to being around knucklehead peers?

 

So, if poverty, and the number of kids coming from homes where English is not the first language, are major contributors to our schools problems, can someone please explain to me how we're going to fix our schools, and also take in hundreds of thousands of poor children from Central America who don't speak English as a first language?

Aren't our education policies at odds with our immigration policies?

 

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

 

Is that a governing document?

 

I see cran's point, but it can be argued that poem has as much relevance today as the second amendment (yeah, it sounded good at the time, but . . . ).

A country can only "least common denominator" itself so far and for so long before the burden becomes to heavy to carry.

 

The Second Amendment is in our governing document.

The poem, is a poem.

 

The left will agree to drop the poem if the right will, in return, agree to stop quoting dead white slave owners in every venue they can imagine, including political stump speeches, for their unassailable wisdom.

 

And, will the left stop quoting FDR, who put American citizens in internment camps?

 

Are we really going to pretend that the left quotes FDR in the manner that the right quotes any number of founding fathers, incessantly and, usually, inaccurately? And I don't really care that they were slave owners, though I put that in there. I care because who gives a fuck what they have to say?

 

This woman received an evaluation of "highly effective".

Wagoner teacher jailed after showing up at school drunk, pantless



http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/wagoner-teacher-jailed-after-reportedly-showing-up-at-school-drunk/article_367c1279-802d-5747-ad4b-9eb7af8b9bea.html

 

Really? They offer us no wisdom to learn from?

Do you reject the wisdom of Greek philosophers, or Confucius, or Jesus because they lived too long ago?

Does Ghandi make the cut? How about MLK or JFK?

Maybe we should start from when Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.