I Just Couldn't Sacrifice My Son (To the Washington, DC School System)

Well, as odd as this may sound, the very first step in my reformation recipe is “tort reform” including, possibly, a “loser pays” addition to the system.

This would further hurt teachers defending themselves against the biased court system.

If your belief in the courts system is that far skewed then we are all doomed. DOOMED, I TELL YOU, DOOMED

In contrast, it happens to be my observation that we have the best model (jury system) for a judicial system humanly possible. Nonetheless, I will freely admit that the system is skewed by some limited number of liberal judges who seem to think that their function is to legislate rather than interpret the law. Additionally, I will also willingly concede that there far too many, opportunistic, under-principled and over-litigious lawyers who abuse the system.

However, both of these ills are curable. The problem of overly liberal judges is cured by elections (either directly in the case of many state and local judges or election of conservative sources of appointment and confirmation in other cases). Admittedly, this will be a less than speedy solution, but an effective one, nevertheless.

The problem of the overly-litigious lawyers is cured by a “loser pays” system. Anyone, except those with money to burn, will think twice about hiring one of these “legal gunslingers” when they know that if their suit fails they have to pay, not only their lawyers, but those of the other side as well, in addition to possible income losses, etc., for the victim of their suit. Additionally, the accused in such a frivolous suit may very well be more willing to stand against a groundless suit, knowing that vindication through a legal victory does not require bankruptcy. Perhaps, you could explain how such would disadvantage a teacher defending him/herself against a frivolous, lawsuit.

A basic, comprehensive, inexpensive, legal liability policy would be available to any, ...

Already is, through charter school teachers' associations... The notion that teacher's insurance is only available through the teachers' unions is propaganda pushed by the teachers' unions…

As a substitute teacher, I have been present during some informal, full-time colleague discussions of the types of liability policies you are proposing. From these sources (who are neither union ideologues, nor HR types hired to “flog” the union alternative) as well as my own limited research, the alternatives you cite are neither as comprehensive, inexpensive nor as extensive as the alternatives offered by the unions.

Most of the other stuff might be OK except that the NEA, ed schools, and PC bleeding heart liberals would oppose it. Which means short of another revolution, it probably won't happen.

I must disagree with part of your assertion. While it is probably true that real reforms of the type I cited would be opposed by those entities you cite, it is also true that mere opposition does not translate into political victory. The overwhelming majority of the American electorate is not composed of teachers. Additionally, a significant number of teachers do not support the entities you cited. Consequently, I conclude that if a sufficient number of our fellow citizens take the trouble to fully inform themselves, become politically active and vote accordingly, educational reform is a potential reality without a revolution.

So, let's stop speculating and start educating. Let's get some voucher programs up and running and see what happens.

“… all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” … Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence:

Look, I tend to agree with your proposal from personal, adult experience in the public school system as well as political inclination. Additionally, you have argued you point passionately and extensively.

However, except in Utah, your position has still not passed the hurdle posed by Thomas Jefferson (cited above). You have not established convincingly that the “evils” of the current system are not “sufferable” to the majority of citizenry.

Consequently, I still maintain that it would be easier to “sell” the electorate on the proposition of “returning” to state wherein the system apparently functioned adequately. For example, by presenting and supporting an argument that the educational system prior to 1960 allowed corporal punishment, had no “truck” with PC crap, had greater autonomy from central authority and more accountability to locally elected school boards, was composed mostly of “small” schools, etc., it would be more possible to convince voters to approve such a change than a radically different sounding alternative such as vouchers.

If your belief in the courts system is that far skewed then we are all doomed. DOOMED, I TELL YOU, DOOMED

Most lawsuits don't get to the jury phase. Some are settled out of court, but the court wields the power to grant motions to dismiss, in which case your point about the quality of the jury system is moot if the court system is biased and/or corrupt. Something tells me your legal observations are highly selective in nature. The problem is happening now, and electing or recalling judges is a nice idea, but won't address the current or near future abuses, nor will it address the long haul abuses without some comprehensive strategy to bring the issues to the attention of the voting public.

Teachers are plaintiffs in cases in which they are the odd persons out. Often by contrived means, conservative teachers are weeded out, leaving a residue of incompetent and/or liberal teachers. Such teachers will be more reluctant to use the court system to fight for their rights if the court system is perceived as corrupt to begin with and loser-pays is implemented.

As a substitute teacher, I have been present during some informal, full-time colleague discussions of the types of liability policies you are proposing. From these sources (who are neither union ideologues, nor HR types hired to “flog” the union alternative) as well as my own limited research, the alternatives you cite are neither as comprehensive, inexpensive nor as extensive as the alternatives offered by the unions.

That's news to me. I have personally used the insurance as have many other charter school and private school teachers. Otherwise charter schools and private schools would be wiped out by being limited to credentialed teachers, which is to say, often pre-screened liberal and/or incompetent teachers, and would not be able to offer an effectively differentiated product in the marketplace.

I must disagree with part of your assertion. While it is probably true that real reforms of the type I cited would be opposed by those entities you cite, it is also true that mere opposition does not translate into political victory. The overwhelming majority of the American electorate is not composed of teachers.

No but organization and solidarity count big as well as the ability to sway elections by delivering votes in blocs and through big political ad money. Pay attention during elections and you will see the effects of teachers' and government workers' unions.

These are the groups that have landed us in the current situation to begin with. To deny that they have political clout seems to me to equate to head-in-the-clouds idealism out of touch with reality. Additionally, most teachers are liberal and do support the NEA, while ed schools weed out conservative and libertarian citizens who aspire to teach in public schools. IOW, it's a racket. Step 1 in any solution is to recognize it is a racket. The racket is furthermore protected by judges trying to reduce their caseload (liberal or otherwise) and by the MSM. You need to define effective strategies to defeat these forces, not merely assert that the public can somehow be magically awakened to the problems and solutions.

You also dropped my mention of model solutions that are more effective and exist outside the US, such as Belgium. What happened there?? You are refuting only selective portions of my argument. Do you deny Japan, HongKong, Singapore, Belgium and many other countries do better than we do in teaching essential skills such as reading, writing, and math?

Consequently, I still maintain that it would be easier to “sell” the electorate on the proposition of “returning” to state wherein the system apparently functioned adequately. For example, by presenting and supporting an argument that the educational system prior to 1960 allowed corporal punishment, had no “truck” with PC crap, had greater autonomy from central authority and more accountability to locally elected school boards, was composed mostly of “small” schools, etc., it would be more possible to convince voters to approve such a change than a radically different sounding alternative such as vouchers.

It often has to pass some legal hurdles set up by the state boards of education as well as some kind of referendum of all voters affected (in California). The existing large district bureaucracies tend to argue that budget considerations preclude the desirability to downsize them. Passage would also set up the district for lawsuits since the breakups tend to cleave along economic lines and also racial lines in many areas. In some cases, the laws are so convoluted that no one can accurately predict all the consequences of district downsizing. But the act-local sentiment is noble.

Court corruption exists. Yes, perhaps we are doomed, by naiive people who think reflexively, not reflectively, and use sarcasm as a shortcut around reasoning, investigation, and analysis. If you are trying to make a point, it is not clear.

Ok, here are my points: Our court system is not perfect (and neither is our republic). However, both are the best available on the planet at the current time. There are institutional mechanisms available to correct the problems you have cited.

All that is required to exercise these existent, correction mechanisms is political will on the part of the electorate. The fact that the electorate does not do so (to your satisfaction) is an indication that the majority does not see the same need, either through ignorance, mental incapacity or apathy.

Otherwise charter schools and private schools would be wiped out…

You have presented a false dichotomy. The implied premise of your statement is that private and charter schools (and their faculty) are exposed the same level of risk of frivolous lawsuits as ordinary public schools (and their faculty). I contend that you are in error from several perspectives. In a nutshell, neither, the students attending these institutions, nor parents thereof, are as likely to institute such suits.

Obviously, the students typically attending these institutions are not a representative cross section. Additionally, the parental involvement with instructors is typically higher in the institution types you cited thus decreasing potential misunderstanding and mistrust. Beyond this fact, administrator attention and involvement in the institutions you cited tends to be higher and more intense because the institutions are usually smaller and of higher profile (at least, to those portions of the public who demand accountability), meaning that potential problems are caught and corrected prior to the lawsuit stage.

These are the groups [NEA, etc.] that have landed us in the current situation to begin with. To deny that they have political clout…

First, neither I, nor anyone else of which I am aware, denies that this group has political clout (a term that usually refers to legislative or other influence within a government entity). My counter point is very simple: regardless of the political clout of this group, they do not constitute a majority, or even a plurality, of the over-all electorate in any area. Therefore, to lessen the political clout of this group and institute change, all that is required is to inform and motivate the majority of the electorate to move in the opposing direction.

You also dropped my mention of model solutions that are more effective and exist outside the US, such as Belgium. What happened there??

Sorry, to have not mentioned yourmodel solutions. However, I was addressing them generically in the same vein with my counters to the other proposals for change. Simply put, neither these models nor vouchers (except in Utah), nor any other model for change has, yet, motivated the voting public to demand emulation thereof.

You are refuting only selective portions of my argument.

I could level the same accusation your way. However, I did, and do, not from the logician’s principle of “charity”… that is assuming the presented argument is intended to address the specifics as well as the generality. Additionally, refuting selected portions is an effective and efficient (shorter) method of attacking and countering the entire argument. If you feel that my generalized counters have been in error by ignoring some of your specifics, then, by all means, just reassert your specifics with an expansion of how you feel that they are significantly different from the generalities to which I offered previous counters.

Do you deny Japan, HongKong, Singapore, Belgium and many other countries do better than we do in teaching essential skills such as reading, writing, and math?

Obviously, I do not feel that our current system is as efficient as some others or I would not offered a prescription for change. The question is what change is the most palatable to the electorate while simultaneously correcting the problems.

trying things on the “wholesale” change basis for the purpose of comparing results is an inherently “high risk” proposition...

This precisely describes teaching theory as presented in schools of education today. We're living it; I'm not recommending a different method, but a different direction.

As for unintended consequences...that is a given. If I were generous (*and unskeptical) I would say we're currently drowning in unintended consequences.

It would be more accurate, I think, to say that we're not here by accident (unintentionally.) Any person who has followed education for the last 30 years would conclude we're here by design.

To cut through the cr@p, I'll propose that we both agree that the current system doesn't well serve students. Where we seem to disagree is whether effort is best used in trying to reform the current system or providing an alternative to it.

You note (correctly, I think) that human nature resists change. Combine that with the fact that the pressure groups currently control not just the system, but the terms of debate...and I say you have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying, than changing the direction of public schools.

Thoughts?

... I'll propose that we both agree that the current system doesn't well serve students.

I agree up to a point. I would modify your assertion to say that there current system does serve students as well as it should or could either for their benefit or that of our nation. The fact remains that some significant number of students do come out of the system capable of operating, maintaining and even developing the technology and systems that are essential to run our society.

The question that is under debate is whether the current system will be adequate for the future. There I think we have general agreement that it is not.

... I say you have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying, than changing the direction of public schools

Agreed that neither I nor any other single individual can accomplish the task you have mentioned. However, it is my contention that given the correct information, that many people can change the current educational system. Furthermore, if that change is presented as returning to a "successful" approach, the resistance to implementing the proposed change would be minimal. In contrast, the opportunity for "selling" what would characterized by opponents as a radical, new, untried approach will face much more difficulty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.